Zabiha vs.

Non-Zabiha Meat: A Fiqhi Analysis

By Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah

For decades, Muslims all over America have been debating the issue of non-Zabiha meat.
Two Fiqhi opinions exist regarding this matter. A good majority of the classical as well
as contemporary jurists categorically prohibit consumption of meat that is not done in
accordance with the Islamic laws of slaughtering animals. This group of scholars
consider non-Zabiha meat Haram or unlawful to eat. Typically the South Asian Muslim
community in North America is very particular about Zabiha meat. A second group of
contemporary jurists permit the intake of non-Zabiha meat. An overwhelming majority of
the Arabic speaking Muslim community of North America and Europe go by this opinion
and do not see much of a problem with consumption of market meat. The debate over
non-Zabiha meat still remains alive in many Muslim circles despite exhaustive
discussions and lectures. For some Muslims it seems to be an issue of supreme
significance while others consider it mostly irrelevant.

There is a dearth of scholarly position papers written in English about non-Zabiha meat.
It will be helpful to thoroughly research the issue from multiple angles and put together a
comprehensive position paper. This will assist a common Muslim to understand the
divine statutes underlying this matter and make up his or her own mind whether it is
permissible or not to eat non-Zabiha meat.

Animals are a special bounty of Allah SWT. Some animals are permitted to be consumed
while the others are considered unlawful or unclean. The Qur’an addresses this fact in the
following words:
‫ن‬
َ ُُ‫ِ"ْ!َ َْآ‬#‫ِ"ْ!َ َو‬# ‫ٱ ُ ٱ
ِى ََ َ َُ ُ ٱڊَْـٰ َ َِْآَـُا‬
“It is Allah Who made cattle for you, that ye may use some for riding and some for
food.” (40:79)

Ibn Kathir explains that here Allah SWT expresses His favor that He has created cattle for
the benefit of humanity.
”‫' ا& م‬# ! () *+ ,‫ د‬. /. ً "*# /  ‫ل‬23“
In Surah al-Mu’minun the same favor is reiterated.
‫ن‬
َ ُُ‫ِ"ْ!َ َْآ‬#‫ َةٌ َو‬8ِ9َ‫ آ‬:ُ ِ;ٰ‫َ"َـ‬# َ!8ِ4 ُْَ‫ُ<ُِ!َ َو‬+ /ِ4 *ِ#ّ ُ8ِ2ْ>? ‫ ٱڊَْـٰ ِ َِْ َ ًۖة‬/ِ4 ُْَ ‫ن‬
 ‫َوِإ‬

1
“And in cattle (too) ye have an instructive example: from within their bodies We produce
(milk) for you to drink; there are, in them, (besides), numerous (other) benefits for you;
and of their (meat) ye eat.” (23:21)

Allah SWT ordains that eating and benefiting from these cattle must be in line with the
divine statutes and must not be in accordance with the satanic patterns.

ٌ'8ِ?# ‫و‬K Lُ َ. ُْَ ‫' ِإ ُۥ‬

ِۚ ٰ‫ْ<َـ‬8I‫ت ٱ‬ ِ َٰ ُ<ُ) ‫َُ ُ ٱ ُ َو
َُِا‬E‫ِ* َر َز‬# ‫ً ۚ آُُا‬Bَْ4‫ َو‬Cً َُ*َD ِ ٰ‫' ٱڊَْـ‬ َ ِ#‫َو‬
“Of the cattle are some for burden and some for meat: eat what Allah hath provided for
you, and follow not the footsteps of Satan: for he is to you an avowed enemy.” (6:142)
All cattle are fit for consumption except those forbidden by Allah SWT through the
Divine Writ.
ُْْ8ََ. ٰ/َُْ3 َ#
‫ ٱڊَْـٰ ِ ِإ‬Cُ َ*8ِ!َ+ ُَ ْRِD‫ُ ِۚد ُأ‬2ُْ‫ِﭑ‬+ ‫ُا‬4ْ‫َ"ُٓا َأو‬#‫' ءَا‬
َ 3ِ
‫?!َ ٱ‬3َٰۤ‫َـ‬3
“O ye who believe! Fulfill (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-
footed animals, with the exceptions named…”(5:1)

ِْۖ ُْ8ََ. ٰ/َُْ3 َ#
‫ْ َُ ُ ٱڊَْـٰ ُ ِإ‬RِD‫ِ ِۦۚ َوُأ‬+ّ ‫ َر‬Lَ "ِ. ‫ٌْ  ُۥ‬8َ) َ ُ!َ4 ِ ‫ ٱ‬R
ِ ٰ‫َـ‬#ُ ُD ِْT
ّ َُ3 'َ#‫ َو‬U
َ ِ‫َٰذ‬
“Whoever honors the sacred rites of Allah, for him it is good in the sight of his Lord.
Lawful to you are cattle, except those mentioned to you (as exceptions)…” (22:30)

The list of unlawful food is given in the following verse:

َ َ‫َ\ َأآ‬#‫ َو‬Cُ َW8ِ<"‫ َوٱ‬Cُ َ3‫ُ َذ ُة َوٱْ*َُ َ ِّد‬Eَْ*ْ‫ َوٱ‬Cُ َ2ِ"َYْ"ُ*ْ‫ِ ِۦ َوٱ‬+ ِ ‫ْ ِ ٱ‬8َZِ  ِ‫َ\ ُأه‬#‫ ِ َو‬3ِX"ِYْ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬Wَ‫ ُم َو‬L ْ‫ َوٱ‬Cُ َْ8َ*ْ‫ْُ ُ ٱ‬8ََ. ْRَ#ِّ ُD
‫َﮉ‬4 ُْِ"3ِ‫ِ' د‬# ‫' آَ;َُوا‬ َ 3ِ
‫ ٱ‬b َ ِcَ3 ‫َْ َم‬8ْ‫( ٱ‬ٌۗ ْ>ِ4 ُْِ‫ِﭑڊزْ َ` ِۚم َٰذ‬+ ‫ْ>ِ*ُا‬2َْ>َ ‫^ َوأَن‬ ِ ُ_?"‫ ٱ‬/ََ. ] َ ِ+‫َ ُذ‬#‫ُْْ َو‬8‫َ َذآ‬#
‫ ِإ‬:ُ ُ>‫ٱ‬
Cٍ َ_َ*ْYَ# /ِ4  ُ<ْe‫' ٱ‬ ِ َ*َ4 ۚ ً"3ِ‫َْـٰ َ د‬g‫ َُ ُ ٱڎ‬R ُ 8ِe‫ َو َر‬/َِ*ِْ ُْْ8ََ. R ُ ْ*َ*ْ‫"َُْ َوَأ‬3ِ‫ َُْ د‬R
ُ َْ*ْ‫َْ َم َأآ‬8ْ‫ن ٱ‬ ِۚ َْIْ)‫َْهُْ َوٱ‬IْYَ
ٌ8ِD‫َ;ُرٌ ر‬o َ ‫ن ٱ‬  iِ َ4 ٍۢ ْkiِ l m
ٍ ِ َnَُ# َ ْ8َo
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which
hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by
strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that
which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due
form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat)
by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject Faith given up all
hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your
religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your
religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is
indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (5:3)

The Qur’an gives us clear instructions regarding slaughtering the animals. It has been
universally ordained to recite the name of Allah SWT during the slaughter.

ِ ِI
ّ َ+‫ِْ*ُاۗ َو‬g‫ََ ُۥۤ َأ‬4 ٌLِD‫َـٰ!ُُْ ِإَـٌٰ َٰو‬iِ َ4 ِۗ ٰ‫ ٱڊَْـ‬Cِ َ*8ِ!َ+ ۢ'ِ#ّ ُ!َE‫َ َر َز‬# ٰ/ََ. ِ ‫ْ َ ٱ‬g‫َ
ْآُُوا ٱ‬8ِّ ًَ>"َ# َ"ََْ Cٍ #‫َوِُ ِّ ُأ‬
'
َ 8ِِْYُ*ْ‫ٱ‬
“To every people did We appoint rites, that they might celebrate the name of Allah over
the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food), but your God is One God:
submit then your wills to Him and give thou the good news to those who humble
themselves.” (22:34)

2
The renowned exegete Ibn Jarir al-Tabari explains that in this verse Allah SWT is
informing the Muslim Ummah that all the previous believing nations were prescribed the
method of Zabh.

#‫ن د‬23َِ!ُ3 W+‫ " ذ‬،‫! ا" س‬3‫ أ‬s ‫ـ‬+ ‫ـ* ن‬3t‫' أه ا‬# 8‫ـ‬4 mََg C. * ّ ‫ و‬Cٍ #‫ َوِُ ّ ُأ‬:,‫ ذآ‬/‫ل  ـ‬23
‫ ا&ْ ِم‬Cِ َ*‫ـ‬8ِ!َ+ ْ'ِ# ُْ!َE‫ َر َز‬# /‫َـ‬. ِ ‫ْ َ ا‬g‫َ
ْآُُوا ا‬8‫ِـ‬
“Almighty Allah says,”O People! In all the previous nations of faith We had prescribed
Zabh (slaughtering of animal) and shedding of blood so that they mention the name of
Allah SWT upon the cattle He has blessed them as sustenance.”

Al-Tabari narrates that Mujahid, the famous first century Qur’anic exegetical authority,
also interpreted this verse as meaning Zabh or shedding of blood so that people can recite
the name of Allah SWT upon the cattle during slaughter.

‫ ء‬E‫" ور‬k :‫ ل‬E ،'>W‫" اـ‬k :‫ ل‬E ،‫ رث‬W‫ اـ‬u‫"ـ‬kLD‫ و‬/>8. "k :‫ ل‬E ،v . +‫" أ‬k :‫ ل‬E ،‫*و‬. '+ L*W‫ـ‬# u‫"ـ‬kLD
. !ْ8‫ََـ‬. ِ ‫ْ َ ا‬g‫َ
ْآُُوا ا‬8‫ ء ِـ‬#L‫ إهاق ا‬:‫ ل‬E َ>ْ"َ# "ََْ Cٍ #‫ َوِُ ّ ُأ‬:L‫ ه‬n‫ـ‬# '. ،]8n‫ ـ‬u‫ـ‬+‫' أ‬+‫' ا‬. ، 8*

Ibn Abd al-Birr al-Qurtubi describes that the word “‫ ”ا‬means Zabh and clearance of
blood.
C"#z# C. * ‫؛ أي و‬LD‫
ه^ وا‬# /. ‫*ن‬n*‫م ا‬2‫ ا‬C#&‫ وا‬،C#‫"! أ‬# ْYُ3  ‫ّ' أ‬8+ ]} +
‫ ا‬/  ‫* ذآ‬
!*‫ و‬،C8> CW8+
‫ وا‬.ً ْ>َ Uُ>ْ"َ3 ]+‫ إذا ذ‬Uَ>َ :‫ ل‬23 .L‫ ه‬n#  E ‫م؛‬L‫ ا‬CE‫] وإرا‬+
‫ ا‬U>"*‫ وا‬.ً >"# "
‫؛‬Uُ>ُ
“After mentioning the sacrifices, Allah SWT explains that all the nations were required to
sacrifice. And Ummah is a group of people who agree upon a religious ideology. The
verse will mean that,”We have prescribed for every believing group the ritual of Zabh.”
The “Mansak” means the ritual of Zabh and shedding of blood. That is what Mujahid
said. It is said in Arabic “nasak” when a person does the act of Zabh and the Zabiha
(animal) is called “nasikah”.and its plural is “nusuk”.

Ibn Kathir elucidates that in this Qur’anic verse Allah SWT enlightens that the ritual of
Zabh and cleansing of the blood in the name of Allah SWT is still prescribed for all
nations.
*‫ ا‬:8* u4 ً .‫و‬I# s‫ ا‬g‫ ا‬/. ‫ ء‬#L‫ ا‬CE‫ وإرا‬Ug "*‫] ا‬+‫ل ذ‬X3  ‫ أ‬/  Y3

In essence these animals belong to Allah SWT. It is a great favor that He had subjected
these animals for the disposal of man and allowed him to consume them for food and
other useful purposes. However, this must be done with His permission and the act of
permission lies in slaughtering them in the name of Allah SWT.

It is clear that the Muslim Ummah, like the other faith groups, is obligated to follow the
divinely prescribed method of slaughtering lawful animals. The first and foremost
principle of this divine method requires Muslims to recite the name of Allah SWT at the
time of slaughter. Qurtubi observes that:

3
UE 9#‫ و‬.U‫ و‬U"# !‫ ا‬،‫ أآ‬s‫ وا‬s‫ ا‬g + :UE 9# ‫؛‬W"‫] وا‬+
‫ ا‬L". C8*>‫ ذآ ا‬s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬+ ‫وا*اد‬
‫ن‬W+
3 ‫ وآ ن ا; ر‬.C3…‫( ا‬162 :‫' { )ا& م‬
َ 8ِ*َٰ‫ب ٱَْـ‬
ِّ ‫ ِ ِ َر‬/ِ َ*َ#‫ى َو‬
َ َ8ْWَ#‫ َو‬/ِُ>ُ‫ َو‬/ِ‫َﮉ‬v ‫ن‬
 ‫ُْ ِإ‬E ]+
‫ ا‬L".
s‫ ا‬g‫ ا‬/. ]+
‫ّ' اب أن اا^ ا‬84 ،!# "v‫* ء أ‬g‫ أ‬/.
“Reciting the name of Allah SWT at the time of Zabh or slaughtering of a sacrifice means
reciting words such as “in the name of Allah, and God is great, O Allah from you and for
you” or reciting the verse of the Qur’an that says, “Say O Prophet, all my prayers, my
rituals, my life and death, all is for Allah, the Lord of the universe.” The nonbelievers
used to slaughter the animals in the name of their idols. Therefore the Lord had explicitly
required that the animal slaughter must be in the name of Allah SWT.”

It is an unambiguous Qur’anic injunction that the believing Muslims shall eat from the
meat of an animal that was slaughtered in the name of Allah SWT.

'
َ 8ِ"ِ#ْzُ# ‫َـِٰ ِۦ‬3 َٔ‫ِـ‬+ ُ"ُ‫ْ ِ إِن آ‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬g‫ِ* ُذآِ َ ٱ‬# ‫َُُا‬4
“Thus eat from (the animal) on which the name of Allah SWT was recited, if you indeed
believe in His verses (revelation).” (6:118)

Al-Tabari explains that in this verse Allah SWT, addressing the Prophet (PBUH) and the
Muslims, commands that:

'# 8‫* ذآ‬# ‫"ن‬#z*‫! ا‬3‫ا أ‬4 ، 3\+‫ و‬+ '8"#z*‫ ا‬,‫ د‬.‫ و‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v L*W# 8" ,‫ ذآ‬/  ‫ل‬23
، CW8+
‫ ا‬+ ّ W ‫  أ‬R"8+ ‫] ا
ي‬+
‫ ا‬,*W+‫ وذ‬W} +‫ذ‬
“O the Believers! Eat only from those of your animals which were slaughtered in the
prescribed method of Tazkiyah , such a slaughter that leaves no doubt in your mind that
by such a method the slaughtered animal became Halal (permissible) for you to eat.”

The Prophet (PBUH) has demonstrated this method of Tazkiyah by slaughtering the
animal by the jugular vain or the windpipe. Ibn Arabi explains that:

'
َ 8ََ4 ، { Cِ ‫( وَا‬
ِ َْWْ‫ ا‬uِ4 ‫ }إ*َ ا 
آَ ُة‬:‫َ َل‬E‫ ؛ َو‬Cِ ‫ ا‬uِ4 َ َWَ‫ َو‬،ِ(َْWْ‫ ا‬uِ4 - َ َg‫ْ ِ َو‬8ََ. ُ ‫ ا‬/َv - u ? ِ"‫] ا‬
َ َ+‫ْ َذ‬LَE‫َو‬
1
ُَ4 ،ِْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ َو ُذآِ َ ا‬،َ‫م‬L ‫َ َأْ!َ َ ا‬#} : َ!ِLَ ِ} َ;ِ ً"l8َُ# ‫َ َل‬E‫ َو‬، َ!َWَ#
“In fact the Prophet (PBUH) himself slaughtered the animal in the throat and at the
windpipe and said,” The slaughtering is in the throat and at the windpipe.” This way he
described the place of slaughtering as well as the result of that act by saying,” Eat from
(the animal) whose blood is drained and the name of Allah SWT is recited upon it (during
slaughtering).”

That is why the renowned classical Hanafi jurist Shams al-Din al-Sarkhasi says that:
2
C8*>‫ ا‬W‫ط ا‬B‫ان و‬8W‫' ا‬# bn"‫م ا‬L‫ ا‬88> u4 ‫ ا
آ ة‬/"# ‫أن‬
“The definition of slaughtering is bringing out the impure blood of the animal and the
condition for its permissibility (being Halal to eat) is recitation of the name of Allah SWT
(upon slaughtering).”

1
Ibn al-Arabi, Abu Bakr, Ahkam al-Qur’an
2
Al-Sarkhasi, Shams al-Din Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Abu Sahal , al-Mabsut, Dar al-Kutub al-I’lmiyyah,
4, 79

4
There seems to be a consensus among the classical jurists that this Islamic method of
slaughtering is a prerequisite to make an animal’s meat Halal to be consumed as al-
Sarkhasi summarizes it:
3
ً .B ‫ا ت ا
آ ة‬8W‫ط " ول ا‬B ‫&ن‬
“The Islamic Zakah process is the prerequisite for the purpose of animal consumption.”

Abu Bakr al-Kasani reiterates the same significant point in the following words:

!‫و‬L+ ‫ أآ‬W3 Š4 ‫ان ا*آل اّي ه ا

آ ة‬8W‫ ا‬u4 ‫ ا&آ‬D ‫ط‬I4
4

“The condition that makes a wild (land) animal lawful for consumption is that it is
slaughtered with proper Islamic method. It will be unlawful to eat the animal meat
without the Islamic slaughtering method.”

Al-Sarkhasi defines the process of Zakah or slaughtering in the following words:

5
'8‫م وا*يء واد‬2W‫ ا‬:<2+ ‫* م ا
آ ة‬
“The process of slaughtering will be complete only when the gullet, jugular vein
(windpipe) and the two small blood arteries are cut.”

Al-Mas’udi elucidates that an animal’s meat will not be Halal (permissible to eat) if it
was slaughtered far above the jugular vein or lower than that because it was cut from a
wrong spot.
6
،]+
*‫ اـ‬8o u‫ـ‬4 ]+‫ &ّ ذ‬،‫ُْم‬Wَ3 "# ;g‫م أو أ‬2W‫' اـ‬# /‫ـ‬.‫] أ‬+‫  ذ‬/‫ـ‬D

The entire process of Zakah and the Islamic rules connected with the animal slaughter are
described by many jurists. Ibn Nujaim, the famous Hanafi jurist, explains that the word
“Zakah” is derived either from sharpness or from purification. The word has been used
by the Prophet (PBUH) in both of these meanings.

‫ إذا آ ن‬u‫Šن ذآ‬4 ‫ ل‬23‫ و‬،‫ة‬LW‫ ا‬C3 o u4 ,‫ا‬3 ‫ إذا آ ن‬u‫اج ذآ‬g ‫ ل‬23 ‫ة‬LW‫' ا‬# C2I# #‫ إ‬u!4 CZ ‫ه‬8>; #‫أ‬
'# C2I# #‫ وإ‬.]3‫" ا‬# ‫م‬23 CW}‫^ اا‬8Œ ‫ إذا آ ن‬u‫ ذآ‬U># ‫ ل‬23‫ و‬،*!4‫ و‬,Œ ) ‫ة‬LW ‫دراك‬t‫ ا;! وا‬:3g
Š‫>! « أي Œ! ر! وآ‬3 ‫ ل »ذآ ة ا&رض‬E‫ ذآ ة« أي Œ! ر و‬3‫ غ ا&د‬+‫ ا_Šة وا>Šم »د‬8. ‫ ل‬E ‫ا<! رة‬
‫ ت‬D;>*‫ ء ا‬#L‫' ا‬. ‫ان‬8W‫ ا*ت و<! ا‬/‫ إ‬C.># !‫’ إ‬8D '# ‫ة‬LD !84 ‫ن‬i4 ‫ ا
آ ة‬u4 ‫د‬# '88"*‫ا‬
‫ آن‬u 9‫ وا‬،CD‫  ر‬CŒ E C” :C+‫ر‬4 !ŒB #‫ وأ‬.‫ح‬n‫ وا‬:<2‫! ا‬4 !"‫ رآ‬#‫ وأ‬.C>n"‫ ا‬C} >‫ ت ا‬+Œ‫وا‬
W‫' آ و آ*آل ا‬# #‫Šت إ‬W*‫' ا‬# W*‫ ’ آن ا‬9‫ وا‬،4  ‫ ء آ‬.‫ آ *> أو اد‬C282D C#  '*# ]+
‫ا‬
7
C8*>‫ ا‬:+‫ واا‬،,B‫ و‬,Ln+ ‫ ح ا`; ع‬3 # ‫ وه‬,8Z‫' و آ‬# ‫أو‬

“…Both of these meanings are present in the method of Islamic slaughtering. It is sharp
in the sense that it leads to a swift death. It cleans the animal from impure elements such
as blood and other liquid impurities. Its chief element is the incision and cut. There are
four pre-requisites for it. The cutting instrument (like a knife), the person who is

3
Al-Sarkhasi, Ibid, 11, 220
4
Al-Kasani, Abu Bakr bin Masu’d bin Ahmad, A’la al-Din, Badai’ wa al-Sanai’, Dar al-Fikr, 5, 59
5
Ibid, 12, 2
6
Al-Mas’udi, Ali bin Hasan, Sharh al-Wiqayah, Dar al-Nashr,
7
Ibn Nujaim, Zain al-Din bin Ibrahim bin Muhammad, al-Bahar al-Raiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqiq, Dar al-
Ma’rifah, 8, 191

5
slaughtering being a member of a Millah (a known religious tradition i.e., a Muslim who
in reality is following the rules of Millah or a non-believer who claims to be a Muslim),
the animal being lawful, and reciting the name of Allah at the time of slaughter.”

Ala’ al-Din al-Samarqandi sums up the classical position by observing that:

:<2‫ وا‬XW‫ ا‬L". CW8+‫  ذ‬C8*>‫^ ا‬n 8

“For every animal slaughter it is obligatory to recite the name of Allah SWT at the time of
incision and cut.”

Abu Sahal al-Sarkhasi maintains that the time for Tasmiyah is at the time of slaughter.

‫َ ًة ُأ)َْى‬B ]
َ َ+‫ُ  َ َآَ!َ َو َذ‬k /*َg‫' َو‬
َ 8ll>‫َ ًة َوَأ)َ َ
ا‬B :َ َnْe‫ هَ
َا َْ َأ‬/ََ.‫… َو‬:ِ ْ<َ2ْ‫ ا‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ُ‫َْ َط‬Iُ ]ِ ْ+
 ‫ ا‬uِ4 Cُ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ُ  ا‬k
9
? ِWَ3 َ َ!ْ8ََ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬َ َ َ‫ َو‬,
“The Tasmiyah is required at the time of cutting (the throat). Accordingly if some one
laid down a goat and recited Tasmiyah upon it while grabbing the knife and then changed
his mind and slaughtered a different goat without new Tasmiyah (thinking that the old
Tasmiyah was sufficient) then the slaughtered goat will not be permissible to eat.”

? ِWَ3 َ ِ 8ِ;ْَ Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬U

10
َ ِْ ‫ن‬
 ‫' َأ‬
 َTَ4 َ‫ه‬Lَ َْ+ ‫َ ًة ُأ)َْى‬B ]
َ َ+‫ُ  َذ‬k ‫ َة‬I‫ ا‬U
َ ِْ ]
َ َ+‫ َْ َذ‬U
َ ِ
َ َ‫َوآ‬
“Likewise if he slaughtered the first goat with the Tasmiyah and did not recite new
Tasmiyah for the next one then the second goat will not be permissible.”

? ِWَ3 َ Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬U

11
َ ِِْ+ َ!َWَ+‫ِ"ْ!َ َو َذ‬# ‫َ ًة‬B
َ َ)‫ُ  َأ‬k /*َg‫' َو‬
َ 8ll>‫َ"َ ِ َوَأ)َ َ
ا‬Zْ‫ِ'ْ ا‬# :ٍ 8ِ<َE /َ‫َ َ إ‬Tَ َْ U
َ ِ
َ َ‫َوآ‬
“Likewise if one looked at the herd of goats and recited the Tasmiyah and then picked up
one of the goats and did not recite Tasmiyah upon slaughtering it, the slaughtered goat
will not be Halal.”

It is evident that the Muslim jurists require that the Tasmiyah be pronounced for each
animal separately and at the time of each cut.

It is also required that the person slaughtering the animal must recite the Tasmiyah by
himself. It is not permitted that the Tasmiyah is pronounced by a person different from
the slaughterer himself. Abu Bakr Mas’ud al-Kasani states:

? ِWَ3 َ ‫س‬ٍ َ ُ ْ8َo ٌِ‫ٌ َوهُ َ ذَاآ‬Rِ‫َ آ‬g ] ُ ِ+‫ وَا

ا‬,ُ ُ ْ8َo /*َg َْ /َD ] ِ ِ+‫ِ'ْ ا
ا‬# ُCَ8ِ*ْ>‫ن ا‬
َ ُَ ْ‫َ*ِ"ْ!َ َأن‬4 ' ِ ْ‫ََا}ِ—ُ ا ?آ‬B #‫َوَأ‬
]
ِ ِ+‫ِ'ْ ا
ا‬# ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ : ْ‫ْ ِ { َأي‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ } َوَ َْآُُا‬/َ ََ‫ك َو‬َ ‫َِْ ِ ََ َر‬E ْ'ِ# ‫ن اْ*َُا َد‬
 َِ ;
12
ِ 8ِ4 Cً َŒ‫ُْو‬Iَ# ْRَ ََ4
“One of the leading conditions for permissibility is that the Tasmiyah must be recited by
the person slaughtering the animal. If he is quiet and the Tasmiyah is pronounced by

8
Al-Samarqandi, A’la al-Din, Tuhfat al-Fuqaha’ Dar al-Kutub al-I’lmiyyah, 3, 63
9
Al-Sarkhasi, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abu Sahal, al-Mabsut, Dar al-Ma’rifah, 11, 238
10
Ibid
11
Ibid
12
Al-Kasani, Abu Bakr Mas’ud bin Ahmad, Badai’a al-Sana’ia fi Tarteeb al-Sharai’a, Dar al-Kutub al-
I’lmiyyah, 5, 48

6
someone else, then the slaughtered animal will not be Halal because the commandment
of Allah SWT that “do not eat from what was not slaughtered in the name of Allah”
means what was not slaughtered in the name of Allah SWT by the person slaughtering the
animal. Therefore the Tasmiyah is required of the person”

Al-Kasani further states that Tasmiyah must be recited very close to the time of slaughter.
There must not be a big time lapse between the pronouncement of Tasmiyah and the act
of cutting the throat. The Qur’anic verses, which require pronouncement of Tasmiyah,
require it at the time of slaughter. It cannot be recited long before or long after the act of
slaughtering.

‫َ ? ُز‬W‫' ا‬ ُ ِْ*ُ3 َ ٍ 8َِE ‫ن‬ٍ َ#Xَ ِ+ ‫ْ ِ إ‬8ََ. َ!ُ*3ِLْ2َ ‫ُ ُز‬nَ3 َ ] ِ ْ+
 ‫ ا‬Rُ ْE‫ َو‬Cِ 3‫َ ِر‬8ِْ) ِ‫ ا 
آَ ِة ا‬uِ4 َ!ُْEَ َ4 Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬R ُ ْE‫ ( َو‬#‫) َأ‬
َْ‫ُ
ْآ‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ َوَ َْآُُا‬,ُ َ"َْ# ِ 8ِ4 ٌَ*ْ™ُ# ] ُ ْ+
 ‫ْ ِ { وَا‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ } َوَ َْآُُا‬/َ ََ‫ك َو‬ َ ‫َِْ ِ ََ َر‬2ِ ُ ْ"َ.
ِ 3ِ‫ َْو‬uِ4 َ 8ِE ‫] َوآَ
َا‬ ِ ْ+
 ‫ ا‬R
َ ْE‫ِ إ َو‬CَW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/ََ. /َ ََ ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬g‫( ِذآْ ُ ا‬ ُ 2َWََ3 َ‫] َو‬ ِ ِ} َ+
 ‫ِ'ْ ا‬# ِ ْ8ََ. /َ ََ ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ا‬
ِ ْ‫ِ ِ
آ‬+ ]
َ ِ+‫ِ* ُذ‬# ‫َ َُْ َأ َْآُُا‬#َ‫ْ ِ و‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬g‫ِ ِ
آْ ِ ا‬+ ]
َ ِ+‫ِ* ُذ‬# ‫َُُا‬4 : ْ‫!ِ*َ َأي‬8ِ4 ٌَ*ْ™ُ# ] َ ْ+
 ‫ن ا‬
‫إ‬:' ِ ْ8َ3َ ْ)ُْ‫' ا‬
ِ ْ8ََ3\ْ‫ا‬
13
]
ِ ْ+
 ‫ ا‬Rَ ْE‫ َو‬Cِ 3‫َ ِر‬8ِْ) ِ‫ ا‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬Rُ ْE‫ن َو‬ َ ََ4 ِ ْ8ََ. /َ ََ ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬g‫ا‬

He also maintains that for each animal slaughter a separate Tasmiyah is required.
ْ'ِ# L ُ+ َ‫ْآَْ َو‬zُ َْ َ*ُ!ْ"َ. ‫ِي‬Xْnُ /َ‫ اُْو‬Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ن ا‬
 ‫' َأ‬
? ُTَ3 ‫َ ًة ُأ)َْى‬B ]
َ َ+‫ُ  َذ‬k /*َg‫َ ًة َو‬B ]َ َ+‫َ إذَا َذ‬# ‫ج‬ ُ ُ ْYَ3 ‫ هَ
َا‬/ََ.‫َو‬
14
‫َة‬LِD /ََ. Cً َ8ِ*ْ>َ Cٍ َW8ِ+‫ َذ‬l ُِ ‫ َد‬Ll َnُ3 ْ‫َأن‬

The authors of Encyclopedia of Fiqh summarize the three school’s position about the
condition of Tasmiyah in the following words:

‫س‬
ٍ َ ُ ْ8َo ٌِ‫ٌ ذَاآ‬Rِ‫َ آ‬g َ ُ‫ َوه‬,ُ َ ْ8َo /*َg َْ /َD ] ِ ِ+‫ِ'ْ ا
ا‬# Cُ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ن ا‬ َ ُَ ْ‫ َأن‬- 1 : َ—ِ}‫ََا‬B :ُ َ+ْ‫ َأر‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬uِ4 ُ‫َْ َط‬Iُ3
َ ِ َ*َْ‫ح ا‬
ِ َِْ4 ِ Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ِ!َ ا‬+ ‫َ'ْ َأرَا َد‬# ‫ن‬  iِ َ4 , Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/ََ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ِ!َ ا‬+ Lَ 3ُِ3 ْ‫ َأن‬- 2 . Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫^ ا‬ َ َْ‫َ'ْ َأو‬# Lَ ْ"ِ. ? ِWَ3 َ
Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ِ ِ ا‬+ ْ‫ُ ِد‬3 َْ‫] َأوْ هَ َ َأوْ آَ َ َو‬ َ َg َْ ‫ َوآَ
َا‬, ِ ْ?I‫ ِ ا‬8َِg /ََ. Lَ ْ*َWْ‫ِ ِ ا‬+ ‫ ِ ِ َوَأرَا َد‬Lُ ْ*َWْ‫َ َل ا‬E ‫ َوآَ
َا إذَا‬, ? ِWَ3
^َ َْ‫َ'ْ َأو‬# Lَ ْ"ِ. ً™ْ3‫ َوهَ
َا َأ‬. ُ ْ8َo َ ‫ث‬ ِ ‫ُو‬LُWْ‫ت ا‬ ِ َ;ِv ْ'َ. ,َ X? َ"‫ َوا‬Cِ 8ِ‫َا‬LْDَ ْ ِ+ ُ َ;ْv‫ِ ِ َو‬+ ‫ َوِإ*َ َأرَا َد‬Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/ََ.
‫ب‬َ ُIَ3 ‫ َأ‬- 3 . ََْ‫ِ* َذآ‬# َ َ)” /ً"َْ# ْ‫ُ ِد‬3 َْ ’ ُ ْ8َD َُُW8ِ+‫ْ ُمْ َذ‬Wَ َْ ِ 8ِTْ‫
آْ ِ وَا‬l ‫َ'ْ إرَادَ ِة ا‬. َ َ;َo ْ'َ#‫ َو‬. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ا‬
‫َ ُء‬.L? ‫ وَا‬, ٌ‫َ ء‬.‫ ; َِ ُ ُد‬Cً َ8ِ*ْ>َ U َ ِ‫َُ'ْ َذ‬3 َْ " uِ ِْ;ْo‫ " ا!ُ  ا‬: ‫َ َل‬E ََْ4 , ‫َ ِء‬.L?  َ‫ ”)َ ُ آ‬/ً"َْ# Cِ َ8ِ*ْ> ِ+ /َ ََ ُ َ*8ِTَْ
ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬g‫ن ِذآْ َ ا‬ َِ Cَ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ> ِ+ 'َ l8َُ3 ْ‫ َأن‬- 4 . ‫ًا‬8ِْَ ‫ن‬ ُ ُَ3 َ َ*َ‫ آ‬Cً َ8ِ*ْ>َ ‫ن‬ ُ ُَ3 ََ4 , œ ُ ْWَ*ْ‫ ُ ا‬8ِTْ‫ِ ِ ا‬+ Lُ َ_ْ2ُ3 َ
Cِ 3‫َ ِر‬8ِْ) ِ‫ ا 
آَ ِة ا‬uِ4 Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬R َ ْE‫ن َو‬  ‫ َأ‬/َ‫ إ‬Cُ 8ِِ َ*ْ‫ وَا‬Cُ 8ِ;َ"َWْ‫^ ا‬ َ َ‫ َذه‬- 34 : Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬R ُ ْE‫ َو‬. U َ ِ
َ ِ+ ‫( إ‬
ُ 2َWََ3 َ َ!ْ8ََ.
ِْ!َِ‫َ
ْه‬# ْ'ِ# ] ُ 8ِW_ َ4 Cُ َِ+ َ"َWْ‫ ا‬#‫ َو َأ‬. ُ ْ"َ. ‫َ ? ُز‬W‫' ا‬ ُ ِْ*ُ3 َ ٍ 8َِE ‫ن‬ ٍ َ#Xَ ِ+ ‫ْ ِ إ‬8ََ. َ!ُ*3ِLْ2َ ‫ُ ُز‬nَ3 َ , Cِ َ8ِ‫ ا
ْآ‬R ُ ْE‫هُ َ َو‬
15
َ ْ‫ِََ ٍم َأو‬+ َ َ_َ4 , ً3َِE ُ ََْE ْ‫] َأو‬ِ ْ+
 ‫ ا‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ُْ!ْ"ِ# ٌCَ. َ*َ ‫َ َل‬E‫ َو‬, ] ِ ِ+‫ ا
ا‬Lِ َ3 Cِ َ‫َ َآ‬D Lَ ْ"ِ. ‫ن‬ ُ ُَ3 ِ ‫ن ِذآْ َ ا‬
 ‫َأ‬

“Four conditions are required for Tasmiyah. Firstly, the Tasmiyah must be recited by the
person who is slaughtering the animal. In case that he intentionally did not pronounce the
Tasmiyah by himself, the animal will not be Halal even if another person recited the
Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter. This is the opinion of the group who require Tasmiyah
at the time of slaughter. Secondly, the recited Tasmiyah must be intended for the
slaughter and not for any other thing. For instance, it will not be acceptable if he recited
Tasmiyah to start the act of slaughtering and not for slaughtering itself; or said “Praise be
to Allah” as a gesture of gratitude or glorified Allah or said “God is Great” but did not

13
Ibid, 5, 49
14
Ibid, 50
15
The Encyclopedia of Fiqh, Kuwait, 21, 192

7
intend Tasmiyah as a required condition of slaughtering then his slaughtering will not be
right. If the omission was unintentional then it will be fine. Thirdly, Tasmiyah is not
replaced by a phrase of supplication such as “O God Forgive me” etc. Tasmiyah is other
than a supplication and cannot be replaced either by a supplication or any other phrase of
glorification. Fourthly, Tasmiyah must be recited at the time of slaughter and not before
or after it. The Hanafi and Maliki schools require that the Tasmiyah must be pronounced
at the time of Tazkiyah (actual cutting the throat) and must not be done except shortly
before the act itself. The Hanbali School requires that Tasmiyah must be pronounced
exactly at the time of moving the hand for slaughtering the animal. A group among them
permits it shortly before the act also.”

We can recapitulate the above discussion in the following main points:

1: Cattle are a gift of Allah SWT and should be consumed by His permission. Not all
cattle are lawful to consume. The unlawful animals are clearly listed by the Shari’ah.

2: There is a specific slaughtering method prescribed by the Islamic Law in detail. It

mostly consists of the two major elements i.e., Tazkiyah (cutting throat from a specific
space and letting the blood drain) and Tasmiyah.(reciting the name of Allah SWT at the
time of slaughter).

3: The Qur’an emphatically commands that the believers should eat from an animal upon
which the name of Allah SWT was recited at the time of slaughter.

4: It is absolutely forbidden to eat from an animal slaughtered in the name of other than
Allah SWT or from a dead, strangled or suffocated to death animal.

The Prophet (PBUH) and his Companions were very particular about implementing these
Divine statutes. The Prophet (PBUH) himself never consumed any meat not done in the
name of Allah SWT and he asked the same of his companions. That was the case with him
even before he received the revelation.

Muslim reports that once in the pre-Prophetic era the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was
offered food containing some meat by Zaid bin Omr bin Nufail. He refused to eat that
food saying, “I do not eat what you slaughter at your altars and I do not consume any
meat except if the name of Allah SWT was recited upon it.”

َ‫ أ‬،  َ‫ أ‬، ُْ    ! ، "#‫ !  وُه‬، ‫ !  'ن‬، ‫ !  أ‬، (‫!   ا‬
،ٍ‫ َ)ْ َح‬4'َ5 4ْ#َ'ُ  ‫ َ  و‬/‫ أَ  ز‬:)‫ و‬#) (‫ ث  رل ا( *) ا‬./ (‫  ا‬0
#) (‫ رل ا( *) ا‬#ِ‫ > =م إ‬،ُ!‫ و) ا‬#) (‫ل ) رل ا( *) ا‬7َْ/ ‫ أَن‬48 ‫وذ‬

ِ‫ إ‬4‫آ‬E
‫ و‬،FGَ‫ن ) أ‬.HI  4‫آ‬E
J‫ »ِإ‬:‫ل‬8  ،@ 4‫ْآ‬5/ ‫َٰ أَن‬5> ،ٌ. @#> ‫و) ُ'ْ َ ًة‬
)‫ و‬#) (‫ا  ُ ا(    رل ا( *) ا‬H‫ ! =ث ه‬، «#) (‫ ذُآ ا ُ ا‬

It is interesting to note that Zaid bin Omr, according to Bukhari’s report, was a staunch
opponent of slaughtering the animals in the name of other than Allah SWT. He used to

8
pick on the Quraysh for slaughtering the animals in the name of others than Allah SWT.
The Prophet (PBUH) seems to have refused to eat the meat because probably the name of
Allah SWT was not recited upon it at the time of slaughter. Bukhari reports:

'+ s‫ ا‬L. '. s‫ ا‬Lِ . '+  g "kLD Cَ 2ُ. '+ /g# "kLD ‫ن‬ َ *8ُg '+ ُ 8™ُ4 "َkL D ٍ + u+‫' أ‬+ Lُ *W# u"kّLD
/. ‫ َل‬X"3 ‫ َ أن‬E ‫َح‬Lَْ+ ;g+ ٍ 8َ;ُ '+ ‫*ِو‬. '+ Lَ 3‫ ز‬u َ ِ2َ g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u  "‫ن ا‬
 ‫"!* »أ‬. ُ ‫ ا‬u
َ e‫* َ ر‬.
:ٌL3‫ ل ز‬E  k . !"# َ ‫آ‬3 ‫ أن‬/+4 ،ٌ‫ُ;ة‬g g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u l "‫ ا‬/‫ إ‬Rَ#Ll ُ24 ،ُuDَ‫ ا‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u l "‫ا‬
/. ^ ُ 8َ3 ‫*و آ ن‬. '+ Lَ 3‫ن ز‬  ‫ وأ‬.8. ِ ‫ ُ ا‬g‫ ُذآِ َ ا‬# `ّ ‫ و` ”آ ُ إ‬،ِ+ _‫ أ‬/. ‫ن‬Wَ+
 *# ُ ‫ ”آ‬R> u‫إ‬
ِ 8o /. !Wَ+
  k ،‫' ا&رض‬ َ # ! R َ ‫ وأ‬،‫' ا>* ِء ا* ء‬# ! ‫ َل‬X‫ وأ‬،s‫َ! ا‬2َ) ‫ ُة‬I‫ ا‬:‫ل‬23‫َ! و‬W} +َ‫ž ذ‬3ُE
.« ً # T.‫ وإ‬U
 ‫ إ رًا‬،s‫ ا‬g‫ا‬

This report adequately proves that the Prophet (PBUH) even in the pre-revelation era
would not eat from the meat on which the name of Allah SWT was not recited at the time
of slaughtering. In addition to that, he always advised the Companions to recite the name
of Allah SWT upon the sacrificial animals at the time of slaughtering. The following
authentic Prophetic report elucidates that.

The phrase 8. ِ ‫ ُ ا‬g‫ ُذآِ َ ا‬# `ّ ‫“ و` ”آ ُ إ‬and I do not eat except upon which the name of
Allah was pronounced” occurs in all of these authentic reports. It makes it abundantly
clear that the Prophet (PBUH) not only avoided eating the meat slaughtered in the name
of idols or at their altars but also shunned any meat on which the name of Allah SWT was
not pronounced. That was the case in the pre-Prophetic era. One can imagine how strict
and careful he would have been after receiving the clear cut Qur’anic injunctions. He was
quite adamant about asking others to pronounce the Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter
after receiving the Prophet hood. The following Hadith illustrates the point very well.

‫ رل‬0َ َ #ّ.T» :‫ل‬8  J )َLَ‫ن ا‬

َ َ#'  ‫ُ َب‬N  O#َ8  ‫َْد‬Q‫ُ ! = أ َاََ  ا‬#Rُ8 ّ !
‫ف‬
َ َ َG‫ >) ا‬،‫ة‬VG‫ ا‬48 ‫ه‬/.َT ‫ا‬.‫ ذ‬8 ٌ‫ذا أُس‬X> ،ٍ‫م‬/ ‫ت‬ َ ‫ ًة ذا‬.Tُ‫ و) أ‬#) (‫ا( *) ا‬
@Fَ ْ[Hَ#ْ)> ‫ة‬VG‫ ا‬4
َ 8 [‫  ذ‬:‫ة >ل‬VG‫ ا‬48 ‫ا‬.‫ ذ‬8 @‫ و) أ‬#) (‫ *) ا‬ Z ‫هُ ُ ا‬Eَ‫ر‬
».(‫ْ[ ) ا ا‬Hَ#ْ)َ> #=)* R! ْ[H/  ‫ و آن‬،‫أَُى‬

Sufyan al-Bajalee reports that “Once we slaughtered our sacrificial animals with the
Messenger of Allah SWT. Some people slaughtered their animals before the (Eid) prayer.
At seeing this, the Messenger said,” whosoever had slaughtered animal before the prayer
must slaughter another animal once again. Let the ones who had not sacrificed the animal
before the prayer, do it now in the name of Allah SWT.”
This Prophetic injunction toes the line with the divine promulgation prescribed by the
Qur’an itself.

َ 8ِ2َ;ْ‫ ٱ‬b
َ ِٕ‫ِ"ْ!َ َوَأŒِْ*ُا ٱَْ\
ـ‬# ‫َُُا‬4 ِۖ ٰ‫ ٱڊَْـ‬Cِ َ*8ِ!َ+ ۢ'ِ#ّ ُ!َE‫َ َر َز‬# ٰ/ََ. R
ٍ ٰ‫َـ‬#ُْ# ‫ ٍم‬3‫ۤ َأ‬/ِ4 ِ ‫ْ َ ٱ‬g‫َ
ْآُُوا ٱ‬3‫َو‬
“And during these known days (of Zi al-Hajja) (let them) recite the name of Allah SWT
upon the cattle he had blessed them with. Let them eat by themselves and feed the poor
and the destitute from that sacrificial meat.” (22:28)

9
Hunting is another source of meat consumption. Both Tazkiyah and Tasmiyah are
prescribed for hunting animals. The Qur’an commands the following:

\*ِ# ‫َُُا‬4 ُۖ ‫َ*َُ ُ ٱ‬. *ِ# '

 ُ!َُ*َُِّ '
َ 8َِِّُ# ‫ح‬
ِ ‫ََا ِر‬nْ‫' ٱ‬
َ ِ#ّ ُْ*َ. َ#‫ َو‬R ُۢ ٰ‫َِـ‬8ّ <‫ِ  َُ ُ ٱ‬D‫ُْ ُأ‬E ْۖ ُ!َ  ِD‫َ ذَ” ُأ‬# U
َ ََُٔ‫َ>ْـ‬3
‫ب‬
ِ َ>ِWْ‫ ٱ‬:ُ 3َِg َ ‫ن ٱ‬  ‫ُا ٱ َۚ ِإ‬2‫ْ ِۖ َوٱ‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ َ ٱ‬g‫ْُْ َوٱذْآُُوا ٱ‬8ََ. ' َ ْَ>ْ#‫َأ‬
“They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food). Say: Lawful unto you are (all) things
good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the
manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of
Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (5:4)

Abu Bakr al-Jassas explains this verse in the following strong words:

‫ ل‬D + ‫ أ أراد‬/. ‫ل‬L4 ،‫ ا…آ‬/. ^‫ وا‬8o ‫ ب وأ‬n3t‫ ا‬u™23 #‫ أ‬U‫م أن ذ‬#‫{ و‬8. s‫ ا‬g‫}واذآوا ا‬
‫ ذآوا‬4} :/  E 8. ‫ل‬L3‫؛ و‬C8*>‫ ا‬C<3I+ `‫] ! ا&آ إ‬3 4 '8*># ‫ آ ا‬LE ‫ وا> }ن‬،‫ د‬8<v`‫ا‬
16
.^82 ‫! { وا; ء‬+" R‫ذا و‬i4} :/  s‫ ل ا‬E & ‫؛‬W"‫ ل ا‬D u4 u"3 {‫اف‬v !8. s‫ ا‬g‫ا‬
“The command in the verse requires that the Tasmiyah is obligatory. It is known that
Tasmiyah is not required at the time of eating (but is Sunnah). Consequently, it becomes
evident that Allah SWT intended that it is obligatory at the time of hunting. The people
who asked the question were Muslims. They were not permitted to eat it except with the
condition of Tasmiyah. The same requirement of Tasmiyah becomes evident from other
verses of the Qur’an (such as the one in Surah al-Hajj)…”

The Islamic Law permits owning and training hunting dogs, eagles and other trainable
animals for hunting purposes. It is required to recite the name of Allah SWT while
dispatching the hunting animal for hunting. The failure to pronounce the name of Allah
SWT at the time when the hunting animal is being sent off will render the hunted animal
unlawful and inconsumable. This is commanded by the authentic Prophetic narration
reported by all the authentic sources of Hadith particularly Bukhari and Muslim.

I!  ‫ي‬
= ِ َ a
ُ ] :‫ل‬8 ]=^‫ن  !ب ! = _ُ]ُ   ِ ا(  أ ا='َ  ا‬ ُ #) ّ !
a)‫ إذا أر‬:‫ل‬8 .)‫ آ‬4 ُ ِ‫ أُر‬:a
ُ )> .…)‫ و‬#) (‫( *) ا‬ ِ ‫لا‬َ ‫ ر‬a
ُ 5 :‫ل‬8  ( ُ‫ا‬ َ T‫ر‬
:a
ُ )8 .' )  َ َ‫ إ أ‬،#) ُِْ/  Xِ> ،ْ4‫آ‬5I V> :‫ل‬8 ‫؟‬4‫ِن أآ‬X> :a ُ )8 .ْ4F> a
َ #=‫آ)ْ و‬
E ) J َُI ‫ و‬،)‫ ) آ‬a#= ‫ إ‬ َ ِX> ،4‫آ‬5I
:‫ل‬8 .E ً)‫ِ ُ ] آ‬N5> )‫ آ‬4ِ‫أُر‬
“A’diyy bin Hatim reports,” I inquired the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about sending off
the hunting dog in pursuit of hunting animals. The Messenger replied,” Eat only if you
have pronounced the name of Allah SWT upon your dog while dispatching it. I asked,”
what if the dog gobbled it?” He said, ”then do not eat because the dog did not hold it for
you but retained it for itself. I inquired, “what if another dog was sent out along with
mine?” He said, “Do not eat from the other dog because you pronounced the name of
Allah SWT upon your dog and not upon the other one.”

This Hadith makes it clear that the original rule regarding the animals is non
permissibility until Allah SWT makes it lawful. Had it been the otherwise then the
Prophet (PBUH) would have allowed A’diyy bin Hatim and others to eat from the

16
Ibid

10
animals hunted by the dogs upon which the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced. The
only difference between those animals and the animals permitted by the Prophet (PBUH)
for consumption was the pronouncement of Tasmiyah.

Al-Jassas observes that A’diyy bin Hatim was a Muslim. The Prophet (PBUH) required
him to pronounce the Tasmiyah at the time of sending off the dog and told him not to eat
if the Tasmiyah was omitted.
‫    إر ل ا‬،   ‫و! آن ي‬
. 17‫ م ا‬$ %‫(' ا&آ‬$‫و‬

There is another Hadith reported by A’diyy bin Hatim which also states that only that
hunted animal is allowed to be consumed which was hunted by a dog upon which the
name of Allah SWT was pronounced at the time of dispatch. The Prophet (PBUH) clearly
forbade consumption of meat in case any mix up or confusion took place between dogs:

(‫ *) ا‬ = ‫ ا‬a

ُ 5» :‫ل‬8  (‫ ا‬T‫ ر‬I!  ‫ي‬ J ِ   ٍ   ‫ّ ُء‬/ِ ‫ ! = زآ‬#]ُ ‫! ّ أ‬
 R5‫ و‬.H#ِ8‫َِ >@ َو‬Tَ] ‫ و أ*ب‬،ُْ)F> fِ J . ‫ب‬ َ *‫  أ‬:‫ل‬8 ‫ض‬ ِ ‫ ِ ا]ا‬#َ*  )‫ و‬#)
ً)‫ ـ آ‬ َ Vِ‫ ـ أو آ‬
َ )‫ آ‬0 ‫ت‬
َ Nَ‫ وإن و‬.ٌ‫" ذآة‬ ِ )F‫ ا‬Hَ ‫ن أ‬
= Xِ> ،ْ4F> #)  َ َ‫  أ‬:‫)" >ل‬F‫ ِ ا‬#*
fُْ‫آ‬HَI ‫ و‬،ِ)‫ت ا َ ا( ) آ‬
َ ‫ِ ذآ‬X> ،ْ4‫آ‬5I V> ‫َ)َُ ـ‬Rَ8 8‫ ] ـ و‬fُ Hَ َ‫ن َأ‬
َ F/ ‫ أن‬a#^h> ،fَ#i
f#i )
The following Hadith also makes it abundantly clear that only the dog on which the name
of Allah SWT was pronounced at the time of dispatch will be considered the source of
lawful hunting:

(‫ ا‬ َ T‫ ٍ ر‬I!  ‫ي‬ J ِ َ  ]=^‫ َ ! = *ٌ  ا‬/7/  a ُ  = ! 4#‫! ّ   إ‬
V> 4 َ َ‫ْ وإن َأآ‬4F> 4َ َRَ8‫ َو‬
َ َْ5> a
َ #=‫ و‬
َ )َ‫ آ‬a
َ )‫ »إذا أر‬:‫ل‬8 )‫ و‬#) (‫  ا *) ا‬
X> ،ْ4‫آ‬5I V>  َ )Rَ>  َ F5> @#) (‫ْآ ِ ا ُ ا‬Hُ/  ًVِ‫ آ‬j ‫ وإذا‬.ِِْ' ) َْ‫ أ‬X> ،4ُ‫آ‬5I
0َ 8َ‫ وإن و‬،4F> ِ@ ُ ‫
أ‬ ّ ‫  إ‬O# #/ ‫م أو‬/ ] َُI N> #G‫ ا‬a َ #َ‫ وإن ر‬.4R8 @/‫َ ري أ‬I

ْ4‫آ‬5I V> ‫> ا ِء‬

There is another authentic Hadith reported by Abi Tha’alabah al-Khoshaniyy which goes
further than the Hadith of A’diyy bin Hatim in emphasizing the need to recite the name
of Allah SWT upon the hunting dogs and arrows.

‫  أ‬O/‫  أ إدر‬ Z ^َJ ‫ َ ا‬/7/ ُ  ُ]#‫ أ ر‬:‫ل‬8 ‫ْ َ ُة‬#َ! = ! َ /7/ ُ  (‫! ّ  ُ ا‬
ٍ #َ* ‫رض‬5‫@؟ و‬Rَ#ِE > 4‫آ‬5>‫ أ‬،‫ب‬RF‫ ا‬4‫ ٍم أه‬8 ِ‫رض‬5 ّ‫ إ‬،(‫ ا‬ =  / :a
ُ )8 :‫ل‬8  J َِ^ُh‫َ])َ ا‬
4
ِ ‫ت  أه‬َ ‫ أّ  ذآ‬:‫ل‬8 ‫)ُ[ ؟‬G/ > ،=)]‫) ا‬F‫ و‬،=)] O# ‫ي‬H‫) ا‬F‫ ُ َ و‬#*‫أ‬

َ  ‫ت‬َ ْ ِ* َ‫ و‬.@#> ‫)ه وآ)ا‬i> ‫ وا‬LI  ‫ وإن‬،@#> ‫آ)ا‬5I V> ‫ه‬#i I َN‫ِن َو‬X> ،‫ب‬RF‫ا‬
ّ)] #i َ )F ‫ت‬
َ * ‫ و‬،ْ4F> ( ِ ‫ت ا َ ا‬َ ‫آ‬H> =)]‫ ا‬
َ )F ‫ت‬َ ِ* ‫ْ؛ و‬4F> (‫ت ا َ ا‬ َ َ‫آ‬H>
ْ4F> َُI‫ ذَآ‬a
َ ‫درآ‬5>
“Abi Tha’alabah al-Khoshaniyy reports, “I said to the Prophet, O the Prophet of Allah,
we live in the land of People of the Book. Can we eat in their utensils? We also live in a
17
Al-Jassas, Ibid

11
hunting area. I use my bow (arrows) and trained as well as non-trained dogs for hunting
purposes. What is permitted for me to eat from that? The Prophet (PBUH) replied,”
regarding People of the Book, restrain from eating in their paraphernalia if you got other
choices. Cleans these accessories thoroughly in case of no alternates and then eat in it.
And eat only from the arrow hunt if you did pronounce the name of Allah SWT before
dispatching the arrows. Also if you had pronounced the name of Allah before dispatching
your trained dog then eat from its hunting. Regarding the untrained dog, eat only if you
were able to slaughter the hunted animal (through the Tazkiyah process).”

Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdasi, the famous Hanbali authority, reports that according to Imam
Ahmad, recitation of the name of Allah SWT is a necessity.

‫ »إذا‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫ل ا‬2 ،!g `‫ و‬L*. u4 *!". /;3 `…!>‫ رح أو ا‬n‫ ل ا‬g‫ إر‬L". C8*>‫“ا‬
(;# «.)…‫ ا‬/. > ‫ و‬،U‫ آ‬/. R8*g *‫ إ‬Ui4 ،‫Š آ‬4 ,8o # ‫ت‬L‫ وإن و‬،4 R8*g‫ و‬U‫ آ‬Rg‫أر‬
!4 ” & ،!>‫ ل ا‬g‫ إر‬u4 !>‫' ا‬. /;3 :".‫ و‬.‫ ا
آ ة‬u4 ‫ * ذآ‬،!>‫ ا‬u4 !". /;3 :".‫ و‬.8.
18
”.^‫ وا&ول ا*
ه‬.’3LW ،^‫ ل ا‬g‫ إر‬u4 ". /;3 `‫ و‬،C"8>‫آ‬
“Pronouncing the name of Allah SWT at time of dispatching the hunting dog or the arrow
is a must. It cannot be violated intentionally or forgetfully because the Prophet (PBUH)
said, “eat only if you pronounced the name of Allah SWT at the time of sending off the
dog. Do not eat if you found another dog with it because you pronounced the name of
Allah SWT upon your dog and not upon the other one.” This is an agreed upon Hadith. It
has been reported that Ahmad was of the opinion that the person would be forgiven if he
forgot to pronounce the Tasmiyah as we have mentioned in the discussion regarding the
rules of Tazkiyah. Ahmad has also given the concession if a person forgot Tasmiyah upon
sending the arrow because arrow is equipment just like a knife. No concession is given if
the hunter forgot Tasmiyah at the time of sending off the dog, as the Hadith indicated.
The official position of the (Hanbali) school is that Tasmiyah is a must and cannot be
violated intentionally or forgetfully.”

Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi, the famous Maliki jurist, puts the point in a nutshell:

َ!َْ>g‫ َأ‬uِ‫ ا‬Cِ 3ِ َ"َْ*ْ‫َ }ِ ِ ا‬L ‫ِ وَا‬C"?>‫ن وَا‬

ِ ”ُْ2ْ ِ+ ‫ْَ ُم‬Dَْ‫ ا‬,ِ
ِ َ‫( ه‬
َ َُ ْ‫^ َأن‬
ُ ِnَ3 : ". s‫ ا‬ue‫َْ ٍ ر‬+ ُ+‫ َأ‬uِe َ2ْ‫َ َل ا‬E
{ ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ } َوَ َْآُُا‬. { ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ِ* ُذآِ َ ا‬# ‫َُُا‬4 } : /َ ََ ‫َ َل‬E ْLَ2َ4 ‫ن‬ ُ ”ُْ2ْ‫ ا‬#ََ4 . Cُ َ3ِI‫ا‬
َ‫ َو‬, ِ 3ِْW‫ ا‬/ََ. ٌ‫ْ*ُل‬Wَ# ٌuْ!َ { ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ } َوَ َْآُُا‬: ُ َُْE‫ َو‬. ' ِ ْ8َ*ْُWْ‫] ا‬ َ َeْ‫' َوَأو‬ ِ ْ8َ َWْ‫' ا‬
َ 8ََ4
ِ ِْ. b ِ 8ِ;َ ْ'ِ# ‫ َوهَ
َا‬. œ َ َََ3 ْ‫ُ ُز َأن‬nَ3 َ‫ َو‬, œ َ ْWَ*ْ‫ََا َم ا‬Wْ‫َ ِ ِ ا‬8َ™َْ2ُ# œ ِ َْ+ uِ4 ِ ِ‫ ; َِ"َ ُو‬Cِ َ‫ اْََاه‬/ََ. ُ ُْ*َD ‫ُ ُز‬nَ3
‫َ َل‬E‫ َو‬. { ُْَ4 ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ َو ُذآِ َ ا‬, ‫ َم‬L ‫َ َأْ!َ َ ا‬# } : ‫ح‬ ِ َWl_‫ ا‬uِ4 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ُ َُْ2َ4 Cُ "?>‫ ا‬#‫ َوَأ‬. ‫ُ ِل‬vُْ‫ا‬
8. s‫ ا‬/v ً™ْ3‫َ َل َأ‬E‫ َو‬. { ُْَ4 ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ َ ا‬g‫ َو َذآَْت ا‬, َ َُ*ْ‫ ا‬Uََْ‫ آ‬Rَْgْ‫ } إذَا َأر‬: g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ً™ْ3‫َأ‬
ٌC‫ َأ ِد‬,ِ
ِ َ‫ َوه‬. { ِ َ)\ْ‫ ا‬/ََ. l َ>ُ َْ‫ َو‬Uَِْ‫ آ‬/ََ. Rْ8*َg َ*‫ إ‬Uiِ َ4 ; ُْ‫ََ َْآ‬4 َ َ)” ًَْ‫ آ‬Uَِْ‫ آ‬:َ َ# ‫ْت‬Lَ‫ } َوِإنْ َو‬: g‫و‬
19
Cِ ‫ِ'ْ َأ¡ْ!َ ِ اَْ ِد‬# U َ ِ‫ َو َذ‬, ٌCَ8ِ َ. ٌCَِ َo ٌ‫¡َ هِ َة‬
“These rules must be tied to the Qur’an, Sunnah and the significative arguments founded
by the Islamic Law. Allah SWT in the Qur’an commands, “Eat from the (animals) upon
which the name of Allah is pronounced”, “Do not eat from what was not slaughtered in
the name of Allah”. Allah SWT by these two verses has explained both the situations and
both of the rulings. His commandment that “Do not eat from what was not slaughtered in

18
Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdasi, al-Kafi, 1, 482
19
Ibn al-Arabi, Abu Bakr, Ahkam al-Qur’an, Dar al-Kutub al-I’lmiyyah, 2, 247

12
the name of Allah” is categorical in making such an animal Haram for consumption and
it is not permitted to interpret this verse to mean leading to only dislike or repugnance.
Such a categorical (phrase) commandment leads to absolute Haram in many cases and
should not be divided into portions (that it applies to some cases and not to others). This
is the demand of the rules of Islamic jurisprudence (that the verse be taken for absolute
Haram and not for dislike). From the Hadith the proof is clear also when the Prophet
(PBUH) ordered that “Eat from whatever was slaughtered in such a fashion that the blood
was drained and the name of Allah SWT was pronounced on it.” He also said that “Eat
only from that animal that was hunted by your trained dog and you had recited the name
of Allah SWT at the time of dispatching that dog”. He also said that, “If you found with
your dog another dog then do not eat because you pronounced the Tasmiyah while
dispatching your dog and not upon the other.” These proofs (from the Qur’an and
Sunnah) are absolutely categorical and direct.”

Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi, the renowned Shafa’i’ jurist, observes that so pervasive are the
Qur’anic verses and the Ahadith regarding pronouncing the name of Allah SWT upon the
hunting animal that no doubt should be left in the mind of any scholar that without
Tasmiyah the meat will not be Halal (permissible) to consume.
”20 C8*>‫ ا‬/. ‫ ا&آ‬D mE‫“و‬
“The permissibility is based upon the pronouncement of the name of Allah SWT.”

There is a consensus within the Hanafi school of Islamic Fiqh that Tasmiyah at the time
of dispatching the trained hunting dog and also at the time of slaughtering a lawful
animal is a precondition for permissibility. There is no second opinion whatsoever other
than this official position of the school.21

In addition to this frequent positive reinforcement of the Tasmiyah through multiple

Qur’anic verses and Prophetic traditions, the Islamic Shari’ah has also prohibited
consumption of the meat upon which the name of Allah SWT was not recited, as already
seen. The Qur’an categorically forbids such consumption:
ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫َوَ َْآُُا‬
“Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: that would be
impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to
obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans.” (6:120)

Ibn Kathir explains this verse in the following words:

LE‫ و‬،ً *># ]+‫ و آ ن ا
ا‬، !8. s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬3  ‫ إذا‬W ` CW8+
‫ أن ا‬/‫' ذه^ إ‬# C*3‫ ا‬C3…‫ ا‬,
!+ ‫ل‬Lg‫ا‬
‫اء‬g‫ و‬،C;_‫ ا‬,
!+ CW8+
‫ ا‬,
‫ ه‬W ` ‫ ل‬E '# !"*4 :‫ال‬E‫ أ‬CkŠk /. ،C>*‫ ا‬,
‫ ه‬u4 s‫*! ا‬D‫ ر‬C*}&‫ ا‬m)‫ا‬
‫ وه‬،'38g '+ L*W#‫ و‬،uI‫ ا‬# .‫ و‬،,`# :4 ‫ و‬،*. '+‫' ا‬. ‫وي‬# ‫ وه‬،ً‫!ا‬g ‫ًا أو‬L*. C8*>‫وك ا‬#
‫ ر‬8)‫ وه ا‬،'3)*‫' وا‬8#L2*‫ ا‬+ Wv‫' أ‬# C;} Œ ‫" _ه‬D '+ L*D‫' أ‬. C3‫ وروا‬،U # ‫ م‬#t‫' ا‬. C3‫روا‬
+ ‫ آ‬u4 ،C84 I‫)ي ا‬# '# ،u} <‫ ا‬u. '+ L*W# '+ L*W# ‫ ا;ح‬+‫ أ‬U‫ وا) ر ذ‬،‫ هي‬T‫ وداود ا‬،‫ر‬k u+‫أ‬
'
َ ْَ>ْ#‫ِ*\ َأ‬# ‫َُُا‬4 25‫ن‬/18‫ن‬4‫ش‬5‫ }س‬L8_‫ ا‬C3” u4 2+‫ و‬،C3…‫ ا‬,
!+ ‫ا *
ه! ه
ا‬nD‫ وا‬،«'8+‫»ا&ر‬
8E‫ و‬،‫ ا&آ‬/. L} . 8E 8*™‫( { وا‬ ٌۗ ْ>ِ;َ ‫ } َوِإ ُۥ‬2+ C3…‫ ا‬,
‫ ه‬u4 L‫ أآ‬LE k { ِۖ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ َ ٱ‬g‫ْُْ َوٱذْآُُوا ٱ‬8ََ.
20
Al-Zarkashi, Abu Abdallh Badr al-Din Muhammad bin Bahadur, Sharkh al-Zarkashi, 6, 600
21
See al-Sarkhasi, al-Mabsut, Ibid; al-Kasani, Ibid,

13
u+‫  وأ‬D '+ ‫ي‬L. u93LW‫ آ‬،L8_‫ وا‬CW8+
‫ ا‬L". C8*> + #&‫ ا‬u4 ‫’ ااردة‬3‫ د‬D& +‫ و‬،s‫ ا‬8Z ،]+
‫ ا‬/. L} .
'+ :4‫’ را‬3LD‫ و‬،'8W8W_‫ ا‬u4 *‫« وه‬U8. U>#‫ أ‬# 4 8. s‫ ا‬g‫ ا* وذآت ا‬U‫ آ‬Rg‫ »إذا أر‬:Ck
/v s‫ل ا‬g‫ أن ر‬:‫>د‬# '+‫’ ا‬3LD‫ و‬،ً ™3‫' أ‬8W8W_‫ ا‬u4 ‫« وه‬,4 8. s‫ ا‬g‫م وذآ ا‬L‫ أ! ا‬#» ¦3L)
‫ ل‬E :‫ ل‬E un‫ ن ا‬8;g '+ ‫ب‬L" ’3LD‫ و‬،># ,‫« روا‬8. s‫ ا‬g‫ ذآ ا‬T. ‫' » آ‬n ‫ ل‬E g‫ و‬8. s‫ا‬
]+
84 "8v /D ،]+‫' ذ‬3  '#‫ و‬،‫ ! أ)ى‬# ]+
84 u_3 ‫ أن‬E ]+‫' ذ‬#» g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ل ا‬g‫ر‬
22
«s‫ ا‬g +
“This verse is used as the evidence by those who maintain that the meat upon which the
name of Allah SWT was not pronounced is unlawful to consume even if it was
slaughtered by a Muslim. The Muslim scholarship is divided on this issue into three
categories.

The first group maintains that such a meat is unlawful whether the slaughtering
individual was at a loss to pronounce the Tasmiyah intentionally or forgetfully. This is
the position of Ibn Omar, his student Naf’ia, A’mir al-Sha’bi and Muhammad bin Sireen.
It is also reported both from Imam Malik and Ahmad bin Hanbal. This view is supported
by a group of early as well as later Hanbali jurists. The same position is held by Abi Thur
and Dawud al-Zahiri. It is preferred by the late Shaf’aee jurist Abu al-Fattuh Muhammad
bin Muhammad bin Ali al-Ta’iee in his book al-Arba’een. This category of scholars, in
addition to this verse, also quote other verses such as the “verse of hunting” in which
Allah SWT commands, “eat from what was kept for you by your hunting dog and recite
upon it the name of Allah SWT. Allah SWT also emphasizes upon this by saying,” it
certainly is abominable.” The pronoun here is directed to the meat. It has also been said
that the pronoun here refers to slaughtering in the name of other than Allah SWT. These
scholars also bring many authentic Ahadith to substantiate their position that Tasmiyah is
a must…” Ibn Kathir here quotes the above discussed Ahadith.

The Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali scholars maintain that the above quoted verse of Surah
al-Ana’m is categorical in making the Tasmiyah an indispensable requirement for
permissibility. It is also absolute in prohibiting consumption of the meat on which the
name of Allah SWT was not proclaimed. Abd al-Aziz bin Ahmad bin Muhammad al-
Bukhari, a Hanafi jurist, explains that the verse is so emphatic and clear that anybody
who intentionally omits recitation of Tasmiyah must be excluded from permissibility.

{ ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ

ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ } َوَ َْآُُا‬/  2 َLَ ْ"ِ. Cُ َW8ِ+
 ‫ِ ? ا‬Wَ َ ‫ًا‬Lِ# َ. Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/ََ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬ َ َ َ ‫إذَا‬
ُ ْ"ِ# ‫ْ ٍء‬Xُ l ُ‫ آ‬Cَ َ#ُْD uِ™َْ2َ8َ4 Cِ َZَ َُ*ِْ u ِ ْ;"‫ ا‬:ِ ِeَْ# uِ4 ُ َِ ْ'ِ# ‫ف‬ ِ َْWِ+ U َ ِ‫ َذ‬Lَ ‫ َ َوَأآ‬3ِْW‫ ا‬uِ™َْ2َ3 u
ِ ْ!"‫( ا‬
ُ َْ<ُ#‫ َو‬Cَ َ3\ْ‫ا‬
‫ح‬ِ ُ+ْ
َ*ْ‫َ'ْ ا‬. Cً َ3 َ"ِ‫ْ آ‬Rَ َ‫ََا ِم َوِإنْ آ‬Wْ‫( َأآْ ُ ا‬ ُ ْ>ِ;ْ َ4 ِ ْ‫َ'ْ اَْآ‬. Cً َ3 َ"ِ‫ْ آ‬Rَ َ‫ } َوِإ ُ َ;ِ>ْ(ٌ { إنْ آ‬/  E uِ4 ‫ وَاْ!َ ُء‬,
23
{ ِ ِ+ ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬8َZِ  ِ‫ً ُأه‬2ْ>ِ4 ْ‫ } َأو‬/َ ََ ‫َ َل‬E َ*َ‫ً آ‬#‫ََا‬D ‫ن‬ ُ ُَ3 ‫ع‬ ِ ْI‫ ا‬uِ4 ً2ْ>ِ4 /*َ>ُ3 ‫ح ا
ِي‬ ُ ُ+ْ
َ*ْ َ4
“If someone intentionally omitted Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter then such a
slaughtered animal is unlawful for consumption as the Qur’an states, “And do not
consume the animal which was slaughtered without the name of Allah”. This categorical
prohibition demands absolute impermissibility. Allah SWT further emphasized the fact by
bringing the word “min” to absolutely prohibit use of every part of such an animal. Then
He SWT brought the word “abominable”. If the pronoun before it is taken to refer to

22
Ibn Kathir, 3, 290
23
Al-Bukhari, Abd al-Aziz bin Ahmad bin Muhammad, Kashf al-Asrar, Dar al-Kitab al-Islami, 1, 295

14
eating then such eating is Haram and if it is taken to refer to the slaughtered animal itself
then eating such an animal is Haram, as the Qur’an states in another verse…”

The renowned Maliki jurist Ibn al-Qasim reports that Imam Malik maintained that it will
be unlawful to eat from an animal upon which the Tasmiyah was omitted intentionally.

U
ٍ ِ َ# ‫َْ ُل‬E َ ُ‫ َوه‬Cُ َW8ِ+
 ‫ْآَ َ ا‬zُ ْ‫ َْ َأ َر َأن‬, Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/ََ. ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬
24
َ َ َ ْ'َ#‫ َو‬: ِ ِg َ2ْ‫' ا‬
ُ ْ+‫َ َل ا‬E
Imam Malik does not differentiate between Tasmiyah at the time of dispatching the
hunting dog and Tasmiyah at the time of animal slaughter. He requires them on both
occasions.

‫َ ِل‬gْ‫ر‬iِ ْ‫ ا‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ‫ًا‬Lِ# َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬

َ َ َ ‫ َوِإذَا‬, Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/ََ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬u
َ ِ>َ ْ'َ*َ‫َ!ُ َ آ‬4 Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬u َ ِ>َ ‫ إذَا‬Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬Cِ َXِ ْ"َ*ِ+ ‫هَ
َا‬
25
ُ ُْ‫َْآ‬3 َ Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ‫ًا‬Lِ# َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬
َ َ َ ْ'َ*َ‫َ!ُ َ آ‬4

Al-Mawaq al-A’bdari reports that the official position of the Maliki school is that the
intentional omission of Tasmiyah will turn the Zabiha into an unlawful Haram animal.
26
^
ِ َ‫ ُ*ْ!ُ ِر َأهْ ِ اْ*َ
ْه‬Lَ ْ"ِ. َ!ُ#l َWُ3 Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬
ِ َْ Lُ ْ*َ.

Ibn Qudamah, the renowned Hanbali jurist, maintains that intentional or unintentional
omission of Tasmiyah will render an animal unlawful for consumption because the
Tasmiyah is a precondition for lawfulness and cannot be violated for any reason. He
argues that the Ahadith which raises the bar for an intentional mistake or forgetfulness
refer basically to the fact that such a Muslim is not sinful. That does not mean that the act
that resulted from such an omission becomes lawful.

َْ َ# ِ 8ِLَ ِ+ , ‫ُو ِم آَ ْ*َُْ ِد‬Lَْ*ْ‫ْطِ ا‬I‫ َ َْ َ ا‬, ِ ْkiِ ْ‫ ا‬u
َ ْ;َ uِ™َْ2َ3 . { ‫ن‬
ِ َ8ْ>l"‫َ<َِ وَا‬Yْ‫َ'ْ ا‬. uِ#ُِ uَ ِ;ُ. } : ُ َُْE‫َو‬
27
‫َْطَ ا_َ ِة‬B uَ ِ>َ
“The Prophetic commandment that “My Ummah is forgiven for the acts committed
mistakenly or forgetfully” negates being sinful. It does not make an omitted prerequisite
like a performed prerequisite. It is just like if a person forgets to perform one of the
prerequisites of daily prayer (his prayer will not be accepted).”

Both the Maliki and Hanbali schools require the Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter and for
each act of slaughter. In this they agree with the Hanafi school as will be seen in the
coming pages. For instance, Mustafa bin Sa’ad bin A’bdah al-Rahaybani, the Hanbali
jurist, maintains that:

ْ‫ن‬iِ َ4 ( ً+ُ‫ ُو‬Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫َ َد ا‬.‫ْ ِهَ ) َأ‬8َo ] َ ْ+‫ُ  َأرَا َد َذ‬k , ًَ9َ# ‫َ ٍة‬B /ََ. /*َg ْ‫َِن‬+ ( ِ ْ8ََ. u َ l*ُg َ# ُ ْ8َo ٌ]ْ+‫َا َ ُ َذ‬Lَ+ ْ'َ#َ‫) و‬
28
Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬U
َ ِِْ+ Cَ َ8ِ 9‫ْ ا‬Lِ_ْ2َ3 َْ ُ َِ ; َ!َWَ+‫ َأوْ َذ‬/َ‫َ َ اُْو‬gْ‫ََاءٌ َأر‬g  ِWَ َْ , ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬U
َ ِِْ+ Cَ َ8ِ 9‫] ا‬
َ َ+‫َذ‬

24
Malik bin Anas bin Malik, al-Mudawwanah, Dar al-Kutub al-I’lmiyyah, 1, 533
25
Al-Mudawwanah, 534
26
Al-Mawaq al-A’bdari, Muhammad bin Yusuf, al-Ta’j wa al-Ikleel li Mukhtasar Khaleel, Dar al-Kutub
al-I’lmiyyah, 4, 329
27
Ibn Qudamah, al-Mughni, Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-Arabi, 9, 293
28
Al-Rahaybani, Mustafa bin Sa’ad bin A’bdah, Mata’lib aowl al-Nuha fi Sharah Ghayat al-Muntaha, Al-
Maktab al-Islami, 6, 335

15
Imam Shafa’i’ represents the second group. He argues that the Tasmiyah (for a Muslim)
is not a condition for lawfulness. It actually is recommended to be pronounced. Its witting
or unwitting omission will not render the meat unlawful. This is the official position of
the Shafa’i’ school and Ashhab bin Abd al-Aziz, a disciple of Imam Shafa’i’, has
recorded it from him. Abd al-Aziz also reported that Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurayrah and ‘Ata
bin Ribah were also of the same opinion though Ibn Kathir is not sure that such was the
case with Ibn Abbas and Abu Hurayrah.

‫ وه
ا‬،™3 ` ً  8> ‫ًا أو‬L*. R‫ن آ‬i4 ،CW># u‫ ه‬+ ،C8*>‫ط ا‬I3 ` ‫ أ‬:C>*‫ ا‬u4 u 9‫وا*
ه^ ا‬
uD‫ و‬،+ Wv‫' أ‬# X3X‫ ا‬L. '+ ^!B‫ أ‬U‫ ذ‬/. §‫ و‬،…،+ Wv‫ أ‬:8*‫ و‬،s‫* ا‬D‫ ر‬u4 I‫ م ا‬#t‫
ه^ ا‬#
29
..‫ أ‬s‫ وا‬،‫ ح‬+‫ ر‬u+‫' أ‬+ ‫< ء‬.‫ و‬،‫ة‬3‫ ه‬u+‫ وأ‬،‫ س‬. '+‫' ا‬.

Imam Shafa’i’ argues that Allah SWT has required Tazkiyah (slaughtering the animal
from a specific place in the throat and shedding the blood) but not Tasmiyah at the time
of slaughter. The Qur’an states: ُْْ8‫َ َذآ‬#
‫ ِإ‬:ُ ُ>‫َ\ َأآَ َ ٱ‬#‫“ َو‬which hath been (partly) eaten by a
wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form)” (5:3) Imam Shafa’i’ argues
that here Allah SWT has just mentioned the Tazkiyah without requiring Tasmiyah.
Therefore, only Tazkiyah is the prerequisite for permissibility and not the Tasmiyah.
Tasmiyah is a recommended Sunnah and not a precondition for lawfulness. Imam
Shafa’i’ argues that Zabiha of a Muslim is permitted because the precondition of
permissibility is al-Millah and not the Tasmiyah.
30
ُ ْ8َo َ Cُ ِ*ْ‫ْطُ ا‬I‫ا‬

Al-Zahrawi, unlike what we have quoted above, reports that Imam Malik maintained that
the animal slaughtered by a Muslim is permitted to be consumed whether he pronounced
the name of Allah SWT upon it or not.
31
ً  8> ‫ًا أو‬L*. !8. C8*>‫ ا‬R‫ آ‬u‫ ا‬CW8+
‫آ ا‬z :‫ ل‬E ‫ أ‬b‫' أ‬+ U # '. ‫ي‬
ّ ‫هَْا ِو‬X ‫ا‬

Al-Razi reports the opposite.

32
ً  8> ‫ًا أو‬L*. ‫ ا
آ‬U‫اء ك ذ‬g ،‫ام‬D !4 s‫ ا‬g‫ ا‬8. ‫
آ‬3  ]+‫ آ ذ‬:U # ‫ ل‬24
“Imam Malik maintained that all the animals slaughtered without Tasmiyah are Haram to
consume whether the omission was intentional or non-intentional.”

This is the famous report from Imam Malik and the official position of the Maliki School.
Ibn al-Qasim, the Maliki authority, maintained that the intentional omission of Tasmiyah
will render the meat unlawful.
33
CW8+
‫آ ا‬z ‫  أ َر أن‬CW8+
‫ ا‬/. ‫ًا‬L*. C8*>‫' ك ا‬# g 2‫' ا‬+‫ ل ا‬E

29
Ibid, 3, 290
30
Al-Zayla’ee, U’thman bin Ali, Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq, Dar al-Kitab al-Islami, 3, 421
31
Al-Qurtubi
32
Al-Razi, 13, 132
33
Al-Mudawwinah, Dar al-Nashr, 2, 51

16
Al-Alusi rejects the claim that Imam Malik‘s position is like that of Imam Shafa’i’. He
argues that Imam Malik did not allow eating from an animal upon which the name of
Allah SWT was not pronounced, even if the person did not leave out the Tasmiyah by
design but forgot to do so. The report of Ashhab bin Abd al-Aziz is an isolated report that
goes against what is authentically reported in many other Maliki books which are more
reliable than Ashhab’s account.

،u4 I‫ آ*
ه^ ا‬U # ^‫
ه‬# ‫™! أن‬+ .‫ وز‬.8. C8*>‫ ك ا‬u4 ‫ ا*! ون‬8o ‫از‬n+ ‫ ذ‬B ‫ل‬E ^!B&‫و‬
34
. !+ I+ ‫ أدري‬C# ‫« وأه‬C8 *‫ »آ^ ا‬u4 ‫ ه ا*د‬, ‫ ذآ‬#‫ و‬،# '#‫و”)ون أ آ*
ه^ داود و‬

Al-Qurtubi reports the following statement of Imam Malik.

.]+
3 ‫ أن‬L33‫ أ‬:‫ ل‬24 e ‫ إذا‬/  s‫ ا‬ul*َ>ُ3 ‫ ه‬:U * 8E /D
35

“Malik was asked whether a person should recite the name of Allah SWT while making
ablution? He replied, ”Is he slaughtering (an animal)?” It means that Imam Malik was of
the opinion that Tasmiyah is a must at the time of animal slaughter and not at the time of
ritual purification, as Ibn al-Arabi explains Imam Malik’s above statement:
36
‫ ا<!َ َر ِة‬uِ4 َ ]
ِ ِ} َ+
 ‫ ا‬uِ4 َ ُ‫َ!َ إ*َ ه‬.ُeَْ#‫ َو‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬:َ ِeَْ# ‫ن‬
 ‫ َأ‬/َ‫َ َر ًة إ‬B‫إ‬

Two different reports are attributed to Imam Ahmad also. One report says that Ahmad
allowed consumption of the animal upon which the name of Allah SWT was not recited.
The other report says he prohibited it, as we have seen above. The official stance of the
Hanbali School is that it is unlawful to eat from the non-Tasmiyah animal and that is the
preferred opinion of Imam Ahmad. Abu Ya’ala al-Farra’a reports:

:'83‫ روا‬/. ‫ ح أآ! أم `؟‬3 ‫ًا ه‬L# . CW8+

‫ ا‬/. C8*>‫ إذا ك ا‬:C>#
]+‫ إذا ذ‬، L*W# '+ +‫ و‬B ‫' ه‬+ L*D‫ ا‬2 U
‫ وآ‬،s‫ ا‬u*>3 ‫ أن‬uZ"3‫ و‬،ِ>3  ‫آ وإن‬3 ‫س أن‬+ ` : "D 2
CD +‫ ه ه
ا إ‬T4 C"3L*‫ ا‬u4 u"3 8. s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬3  *# ‫ و` آا‬:/  s‫ ل ا‬E *‫ إ‬W8+‫آ ذ‬z ِ >3 ‫و‬
` ‫ًا‬L# . CW8+
‫ ا‬/. ِ >3  ‫ إذا‬، ] v‫ و‬، u*8*‫ وا‬، 8‫اه‬+‫' إ‬+ ‫ ق‬Wg‫ إ‬2‫ و‬.+ u+‫ ر أ‬8)‫ وه ا‬،‫ا&آ‬
37
]v‫ وه أ‬uEY‫ ر ا‬8)‫ وه ا‬،‫ ح‬3 ` ‫ ه ه
ا أ‬T4 ‫آ‬z3 u> ‫ وإن‬،‫آ‬z3

Ibn Qudamah summarizes the point.

^‫( ا*
ه‬82W ‫ ه
ا‬،]3  ‫!ًا‬g ‫ًا أو‬L*. C8*>‫ن ك ا‬i4
38

“Intentional or unintentional omission of the Tasmiyah will render the animal unlawful.
This is the authentic position of the School.”

It should be clear by now that among the four Imams of Islamic Fiqh only Imam Shafa’i’
maintains that Tasmiyah is a recommended Sunnah and not a prerequisite to the
34
Al-Alusi, 8, 81
35
Al-Qurtubi, 7, 74
36
Ibn al-Arabi, Ibid
37
Ibn al-Farra’, Abu Ya’ala Muhammad bin al-Hussain, al-Masa’il al-Fiqhiyyah, Dar al-Kutub al-
I’lmiyyah, 3, 10
38
Ibn Qudamah, al-Maqdasi, Abdullah bin Ahmad, al-Mughni ‘ala Mukhtasar al-Kharqi, Dar al-Nashr, 13,
256

17
permissibility. He is the only one who permits consumption of an animal slaughtered
without pronouncing the name of Allah SWT but he dislikes it. The other three imams
declare it Haram to consume the meat.

Ibn Kathir explains that Imam Shafa’i’ bases his opinion on the following interpretation
of the verse of Surah al-Ana’m:

2‫ آ‬،s‫ ا‬8Z ]+‫ ذ‬# /. { ( ٌۗ ْ>ِ;َ ‫ْ ِ َوِإ ُۥ‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬g‫ُ
ْآَ ِ ٱ‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ } َو ` َْآُُا‬C*3‫ ا‬C3…‫ ا‬u4 I‫* ا‬D‫و‬
/!"3 :‫ ل‬E { ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬g‫ُ
ْآَ ِ ٱ‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫< ء وَ` َْآُُا‬. '. ¦3 '+‫ ل ا‬E‫ِ ِۦۚ { و‬+ ِ ‫ْ ِ ٱ‬8َZِ  ِ‫ً ُأه‬2ْ>ِ4 ْ‫}َأو‬:/ 
39
‫س‬n*‫ }] ا‬+‫' ذ‬. /!"3‫ و‬،‫ ن‬k‫' ا&و‬. ž3E !W+
 R ‫ }] آ‬+‫' ذ‬.
“Al-Shafa’i’ interpreted this verse to cover the animals which were slaughtered for others
than Allah just like the other verse which states,” the abominable slaughtered for other
than Allah”. Ibn Jarih has narrated from A’ta bin Sa’ib that the verse, “do not eat from
the meat upon which the name of Allah was not pronounced.” prohibited eating from the
animals which were slaughtered by the Quraysh for their idols. It also forbade the
animals slaughtered by the Zoroastrians.”

The authors of Encyclopedia of Fiqh explain Imam Shafa’i’’s interpretation in the

following supportive words:
َ ِ‫َ ُذآ‬# ‫ن اْ*َُا َد‬  ‫ َأ‬: َ*ُ‫ه‬Lُ َD‫ن َأ‬ ِ َ3ِ‫ ِ َْو‬8ِ;َ4 , { ٌ(ْ>ِ;َ ُ ‫ْ ِ َوِإ‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ َوَ َْآُُا‬: } /  E #‫َوَأ‬
ُ iِ َ4 ِ ْ8ََ. ‫ل‬K ‫ دَا‬Cِ َ3\ْ‫ق ا‬
ُ َ8ِg‫ِ ِ { َو‬+ ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬8َZِ  ِ‫َ ُأه‬#‫ َو‬: } /  E ِ 8ِLَ ِ+ ‫ْ"َ ِم‬vَِْ ] َ ِ+‫َ ُذ‬# uِ"َْ3 , ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬8َo ُ ْg‫ْ ِ ا‬8ََ.
{ ِ ِ+ ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬8َZِ  ِ‫ً ُأه‬2ْ>ِ4 ْ‫ } َأو‬: /َ ََ ‫َ َل‬E . ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬8َZِ ‫هَْ ُل‬iِ ْ‫ ا‬u َ ِ‫ً ه‬2ْ>ِ4 َ!8ِ4 ُ‫َُن‬3 uِ‫ ا‬Cُ َ َWْ‫ } َوِإ ُ َ;ِ>ْ(ٌ { وَا‬: ‫َ َل‬E
{ ُْ‫َ ِدُآ‬nُ8ِ ِْ!ِ} َ8ِْ‫ َأو‬/َ‫ن إ‬ َ ُDُ8َ َ'8ِŒ َ8I‫ن ا‬  ‫ َو ِإ‬: } /  E ِ 8ِLَ ِ+ Cُ َْ8َ*ْ‫ِ ِ ا‬+ ‫ َأن اْ*َُا َد‬Lُ َ*ْD‫َ َ ُ َأ‬E َ# : َ*ِ!8ِ َk .
40
Cَ َْ8َ*ْ‫ن ا‬
َ ُ"َْ3 ‫ََ َ ا ُ ؟‬E َ# ‫ن‬ َ ُُ‫ َوَ َْآ‬- ُْْ8‫ َأيْ َذآ‬- ََُْْE َ# ‫ن‬
َ ُُ‫ َأَْآ‬: ‫ن‬
َ ُُ2َ3 ‫ َِ!ُْ آَ ُا‬U
َ ِ‫َو َذ‬
“There are two interpretation given to this Divine statement, “And do not eat from the
animal upon which the name of Allah was not pronounced.” First is that it refers to the
animals upon which the name of other than Allah SWT was pronounced. It means the
animals which were slaughtered for the idols as the other verse of the Qur’an says, “And
what was slaughtered for others than Allah.” The context of the verse supports such an
interpretation because after that it said, “it is abominable”. The animal becomes
abominable if it was slaughtered for other than Allah as the Qur’an states. The second
interpretation which is attributed to Ahmad also is that it refers to dead animals as the
Qur’an afterwards states, “And the devils inspire their friends to argue with you…” They
used to say, “Do you eat what was killed by you (meaning slaughtered by you) and you
do not eat what was killed by Allah, meaning the dead animal?”

Imam Shafa’i’’s position also seems to be supported by a statement attributed to Ibn

Abbas that the verse refers to dead animals.
‫ وَ` َآُُا‬:‫ س‬. '+‫' ا‬. ،8 '+ L8g '. ،^} >‫' ا‬+ ‫< ء‬. '. ،3 "k :` E ،:8‫' وآ‬+‫ وا‬L8*D '+‫" ا‬kLD
41
C8*‫ ا‬:‫ ل‬E ِ ْ8ََ. ُ ّ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَ ِ ا‬3 ِْ *ِ#

39
Ibid, 3, 290
40
Ibid, 21, 192
41
Al-Tabari, 8, 12

18
 Imam Ahmad and Abu Dawud report that Ibn Abbas, explaining the context of revelation
of this verse, has said that the Jews came to the Prophet (PBUH) and asked about the
dead animals. Allah SWT revealed this verse in response.
:‫ ل‬E ، ‫س‬ٍ َ. ' ِ +‫' ا‬. ٍ ْ8َُ ' ِ + Lِ 8َِg '. ^ ِ ِ} >‫' ا‬ ِ + ‫َ<َ ِء‬. '. Cَ َ"ْ8َ8ُ. ' ُ+‫ن‬ُ ‫ِ*َْا‬. "kLD Cَ َْ8َB uِ+‫' أ‬ ُ+‫ن‬ ُ َ*ْ9ُ. "kLD ‫ــ‬
`َ ‫ } َو‬/َ ََ s‫ َل ا‬Xَ َْ4 ،s‫ََ َ ا‬E *ِ# ُ ُ‫ َو َ` َْآ‬، َ"ََْE *ِ# ُ ُ‫ َْآ‬:‫َ ُا‬2َ4 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u l "‫ ا‬/‫َ!ُ ُد إ‬8ْ‫» َ َءتِ ا‬
».Cِ َ3…‫ ”)ِ ِ ا‬/َ‫ْ ِ{ إ‬8ََ. s‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫َْآُُا‬
“Ibn Abbas said,” The Jews came to the Prophet and said,” we eat from what we kill
(slaughter) and we do not eat from what God killed (dead animal). Allah SWT revealed
the verse, “do not eat from the animal upon which the name of Allah SWT was not
pronounced.”

There are some other reports that indicate that it was not the Jews of Madinah but the
polytheists of Mecca who inquired of the Prophet (PBUH) about the dead animals
because the verse is Makki and not Madani. Yet another report from Ibn Abbas indicates
that it was the Persian polytheists who inspired their Makkan friends to test the Prophet
(PBUH) about the dead animals.42

There is a question mark about the authenticity of these reports as Ibn al-Qayyim has
shown:
،v‫*ة و‬4 ،84 ‫<ب‬e‫' ا> }^ ا‬+ ‫< ء‬. ‫ أن‬: *‫ه‬LD‫ ا‬..  ’3LW‫ ه
ا ا‬:82‫' ا‬+ '3L‫ ا‬b*B ©4 W‫ ل ا‬E ."
 ‫ وإ* أ)ج‬،93LW+ ‫ ج‬nD`‫ ا‬u4 m)‫ وا‬،,*. )‫ ا‬u4 —)‫' ا> }^ ا‬+ ‫< ء‬. ‫ أن‬:C8 9‫ ا‬.g‫ة أر‬#‫و‬
¦W3 ` :‫  اازي‬D +‫ ل أ‬E ،C"88. '+ ‫ ن‬8;g )‫ أ‬،C"88. '+ ‫*ان‬. 84 ‫ أن‬:C9 9‫ ا‬.I+ u++ ً ‫و‬2# ‫ ري‬Y‫ا‬
g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫ ا‬/‫!د إ‬8‫ء ا‬un#‫ و‬،‫ ; ق‬+ C8# ‫رة ا& م‬g ‫ أن‬:C+‫ اا‬.8‫ *" آ‬+ /3 i4 93LW+
43
‫" م‬v&‫ د ا‬. '8‫آ‬I*‫ ا‬:# ‫ا‬L ‫* آ ن‬i4 C*+ #‫ وأ‬،C"3L*‫ ا‬#‫و‬LE L+ ‫ إ* آ ن‬, 3‫ د! إ‬n#‫و‬

Ibn al-Qayyim faulted the above reports attributed to Ibn Abbas due to four reasons:

1: Inconsistency of A’ta bin Sa’ib. In one report he omitted the name of the companion in
the chain of transmitters and in the second report he mentioned him.

2: In the later part of his life, At’a bin Sa’ib was confused. Therefore scholars disagree
over the authenticity of his reports.

3: There is Imran bin U’yanah in the chain. Abu Hatim al-Razi has clearly mentioned that
Imran is prone to fabrication and his reports are not trustworthy.

4: The debate with the Jews took place after the migration to Madinah while the debate in
Mecca was with the polytheists (and the Surah is Makki).

Al-Munzari has observed that Imam al-Tirmizi has reported this narration as a good but
44
strange report. ^3o '>D ‫ ل‬E‫
ي و‬#‫ وأ) ا‬:‫ ل ا*"
ري‬E “

42
See al-Tabari, Ibid for more details.
43
Hashiyat Ibn al-Qayyim a’la Sunan Abu Dawud, Dar al-Fikr
44
See A’own al-Ma’bud ,8, 12 for more details.

19
Imam Ahmad reports, that Ibn Abbas maintained that if a Muslim omitted Tasmiyah
forgetfully then his Zabiha is permissible. Allah SWT would not declare a forgetful
person as abominable (as the verse does).”

:‫ْ ِ َوِإ ُ َ;ِ>ْ(ٌ { )ا& م‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬g‫ُ

ْآَ ِ ٱ‬3 َْ *ِ# ْ‫ } َو َ` َْآُُا‬:/  s‫ ل ا‬E‫ و‬.‫س‬
َ + Š4 uَ >َ 'َ# :‫س‬
ٍ . '
ُ +‫ ل ا‬E‫و‬
45
ً2g 4 /*>ُ3` ug "‫( وا‬121

According to this report of Imam Ahmad, Ibn Abbas seems to be implying that the strong
admonition in the verse is directed to the disdainful omission of Tasmiyah and this the
opinion of Ibn Abbas about the Tasmiyah omission. Imam Shafa’i’, on the other hand,
concludes that the above quoted verse of the Qur’an (6:121) does not refer to the meat
slaughtered by a Muslim. It refers to the meat of the unlawful cattle such as the dead
animal, as the above discussed report attributed to Ibn Abbas. Therefore, Tasmiyah upon
the animal slaughter is a recommended Sunnah and not the fundamental condition of
lawfulness as the above quoted jurists have insisted. As a result, it will be permissible to
eat from the meat of an animal upon which the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced
as long as the slaughterer is a Muslim. This permission extends both to witting and
unwitting omission of Tasmiyah.

Ibn Kathir observes that:

/# ug‫و‬L>‫ ا‬R_‫' ا‬. ،L3X3 '+ ‫ر‬k ’3LD '# :8g‫ ا*ا‬u4 ‫ داود‬+‫ أ‬,‫* روا‬+ ،^‫ل !
ا ا*
ه‬Lg‫ ا‬LE‫و‬
8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ل ا‬g‫ ل ر‬E :‫ ل‬E ،‫ ت‬29‫ آ ب ا‬u4 ‫ ن‬D '+‫  ا‬D +‫' ذآه أ‬3
‫' ا‬8+ ‫ ا‬LD‫ أ‬،‫ف‬n"# '+ L3g
,‫* روا‬+ L™3 ،g#
‫« وه‬s‫ ا‬g‫
آ إ` ا‬3  ‫ إ إن ذآ‬،‫
آ‬3  ‫ أو‬s‫ ا‬g‫Šل ذآ ا‬D >*‫ ا‬CW8+‫ »ذ‬g‫و‬
46
s‫* ء ا‬g‫' أ‬# g‫ ا‬84 >*‫ن ا‬i4 ،‫آ‬84 s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬3 ‫] ا*> و‬+‫ »إذا ذ‬:‫ ل‬E ‫ س أ‬. '+‫' ا‬. u"<E‫ار‬L‫ا‬

He (Imam Shafa’i’) also depends upon some reports that are vaguely attributed to the
Prophet (PBUH).These reports are Mursal. (A Mursal report is where the companion’s
link is missing and a successor of the Companions attributes the report directly to the
Prophet himself). For instance, Ibn Habban, on the authority of al-Salt al-Sadusi, has
reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “The animal slaughtered by a Muslim is Halal
whether he pronounced the name of Allah SWT on it or not. Certainly a Muslim will
never recite the name of any one other than Allah SWT.” Al-Darqutni has reported on the
authority of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “Eat even if a Muslim has not
recited the name of Allah SWT upon the animal, because a Muslim has a name from
among many names of Allah SWT”.

The Shafa’i’ scholars, based upon the above quoted evidential reports, maintain that it is
not the Tasmiyah but the Millah (being part of an accepted religious ideology) which is
the condition for lawful slaughtering. Consequently, the animal slaughtered by a Muslim
is permitted to be consumed whether he pronounced the name of Allah SWT on it or not
because a Muslim slaughters on Tawhid, the basis of Islamic religion.
47
ِ ِ"3ِLِ+ ]
َ َ+‫َ لٍ؛ & ُ َذ‬D l ُ‫ آ‬/َ. ٌ‫َŠل‬D ِ ِْ>ُ*‫ ا‬Cَ َW8ِ+‫ن َذ‬
‫أ‬

45
Musnad Ahmad
46
Ibn Kathir, 3, 290
47
Al-Tamhid, 5, 247 ?

20
Imam al-Zarkashi, a known Shafa’i’ authority, on the other hand, questions the
authenticity of the above quoted Ahadith and declares both of them as weak:
”48 ’3LW + C4*‫ أه ا‬L". ‫; ن‬8e
Ibn Kathir rejects the report of Ibn Abbas by snubbing its attribution to the Prophet
(PBUH). Ibn Kathir remarks that: <) 4‫’ ر‬3LW‫وه
ا ا‬49

There is another Hadith quoted by the maintainers of this position that the Prophet
(PBUH) said,” The name of Allah is in the heart of every Muslim. Al-Qurtubi and many
other scholars reject its authenticity and label it as a very weak report.
50
m8e ’3LW4 «'#z# ‫^ آ‬E /. s‫ ا‬g‫ »ٱ‬:E '# + ‫ا‬2ّ ‫’ ا
ي‬3LW‫ ا‬#‫وأ‬

Ibn al-Arabi also maintains that the above mentioned report is weak and cannot be quoted
as proof.
51
ِ ْ8َ‫ٌ َ ََْ;ُِا إ‬m8َِe ٌ’3ِLَWَ4 { '
ٍ ِ#ْzُ# l ُ‫^ آ‬
ِ َْE /ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ } ا‬: ِ َِْE uِ4 ِ ِ+ ‫ُا‬2ََ ‫’ ا
ِي‬
ُ 3ِLَWْ‫ ا‬#‫َوَأ‬

Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdasi maintains that the Ahadith brought by Imam Shafa’i’ to prove
that the Tasmiyah is a recommended Sunnah and not a requirement for permissibility are
weak. That is the reason that none of the above quoted reports are narrated by Bukhari or
by Muslim.
52
‫ْ!ُ َر ِة‬Iَ*ْ‫' ا‬
ِ َ"?>‫ب ا‬
ُ َWْv‫َ
ْآُْهَ َأ‬3 ََْ4 , u
l ِِ4 I‫ب ا‬
ِ َWْv‫’ َأ‬
ُ 3ِ‫َ د‬D‫ َأ‬#‫َوَأ‬

Imam Shafa’i’ also quotes an authentic Hadith that has been narrated by Bukhari, Muslim
and all other sources of Hadith. This is the Hadith of A’isha, which in regards to this
issue of Tasmiyah is perhaps the most authentic report. Nobody has questioned its
authenticity although al-Darqutni and others have reported it as being a Mursal. The
reason that its authenticity has not been questioned is that it has been narrated through
many authentic Mursal chains. The variety of Mursal chains strengthens the legitimacy
of a report. Ibn Abd al-Birr al-Qurtubi observes:

،,g ‫ ا>Šم & س‬8. 2 ‫؛‬C‫ا‬+ R>8 CW8+

‫ ا‬/. C8*>‫ أن ا‬/. ‫' أه ا‬# C. * ‫ ّل‬Lg‫ ا‬LE‫ و‬.
8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ل ا‬g‫ ل ر‬24 ‫ أم `؟‬8. s‫ ا‬g‫ري أذآوا ٱ‬L ` Wّ + "3 ً #E ‫ن‬ّ ‫ إ‬،s‫ل ا‬g‫ ر‬3 :‫ ا‬E
 ،8+‫' أ‬. ‫وة‬. '+ ‫ م‬I‫' ه‬. Š ً g# U #‫ و‬CI} . '. ّu"<E‫ار‬Lّ ‫ أ) ا‬.«‫ وآا‬8. s‫َ*ّا ا‬g» :g‫و‬
53
 g‫ إر‬u4 8. mYُ3
“A group of scholars, basing their evidence upon the following Prophetic Hadith, have
argued that reciting the name of Allah SWT upon slaughtering the animal is not
obligatory. The Hadith describes that a group of people asked the Prophet, “O the
Messenger of Allah! Some people bring us meat. We do not know whether they have
pronounced the name of Allah upon it or not? The Prophet (PBUH) said,” Recite the
name of Allah upon it and eat.” Imam al-Darqutni has reported it from A’isha and Malik
as Mursal Hadith from Hisham bin U’rwah from his father. Nobody has questioned the

48
Al-Zarkashi, Ibid
49
Ibn Kathir, Ibid
50
Al-Qurtubi, 7, 74
51
Ibn al-Arabi, Ibid
52
Ibn Qudamah, al-Mughni, 9, 293
53
Al-Qurtubi, 7, 74

21
Mursal nature of this report (or nobody questioned the authenticity of the report because
Hisham attributed it directly to the Prophet).”

Following is the report of this incident from Bukhari:

!". s‫ ا‬u
َ e‫ ر‬Cَ I} . '. ِ 8+‫' أ‬. ‫ُو َة‬. '+ ‫ م‬I‫' ه‬. u ? L*‫;§ ا‬D '+ Cُ # gُ‫" أ‬kLD s‫ ا‬L8َُ. '+ Lُ *W# "kّLD
8. ‫*ا‬g :‫ ل‬24 ،` ‫ أم‬8. s‫ ُ ا‬g‫ري أ ُذآِ َ ا‬L ` ٍ W+ "َ3 ً #E ‫ إن‬:g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u l " ‫ ا‬E ً #E ‫ن‬
 ‫»َأ‬
«‫ وا<?; وي‬L ) +‫ُ ُ أ‬+ ‫ و‬.‫ي‬ l ‫راوَرد‬L‫' ا‬. u. ُ َ+  .; + L!. u93LD ‫ وآ ا‬:R E .,‫أ وآ‬
“A’isha reported that a group inquired of the Prophet (PBUH), “people supply us with
meat that we are not sure that the name of Allah SWT was recited upon it or not.” The
Prophet (PBUH), replied, “You recite the Tasmiyah upon it and eat.” A’isha said, “they
were new converts to Islam.”

The report which is narrated on the authority of Abd al-Rahman al-Tafawi does not
contain the ending remarks of A’isha that “they were new to Islam.” Imam al-Bukhari
reports:

Cَ I} . '. ِ 8+‫' أ‬. ‫ُو َة‬. 'ُ + ‫ ُم‬Iِ‫َ" ه‬kL D ‫ي‬? ‫' ا<?; و‬
ِ *D‫ ا‬Lِ . '+ Lُ *W# "َkL D u ? nِ‫ا ِم ا‬Lْ2ِ*‫' ا‬
ُ + Lُ *D‫" أ‬kّLD
‫ ل‬24 ‫ ِ أم ` ؟‬8. s‫ َ ا‬g‫ْري أ َذآَوا ا‬Lَ` ِ W + "ََ3 ً #E ‫ن‬ ‫ ِإ‬s‫ل ا‬g‫ ر‬3 :‫ ا‬E ً #َE ‫ن‬  ‫ »أ‬: !". s‫ ا‬u َ e‫ر‬
.«,ُ ُ‫ ِ وآ‬8. s‫َ*?ا ا‬g :g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ ُل ا‬g‫ر‬
All the other sources of Hadith report that the people referred to in the Hadith were the
Bedouins from the outskirt of Madinah. These were new converts to Islam and used to
bring the slaughtered meat to the people in Madinah.

Imam Ibn Majah reports:

‫م‬l ‫ ُأ‬Cَ َIِ} َ. ْ'َ. ،ِ8ِ+‫َ'ْ َأ‬. ، ‫ُْ َو َة‬. ' ِ ْ+ ‫َ ِم‬Iِ‫َ'ْ ه‬. ، ‫ن‬ َ َ*ْ8َُg 'ُ ْ+ ِ 8ِD ‫ ا‬Lُ َْ. َ"َkL َD . Cَ َْ8َB uِ+‫' َأ‬ ُ ْ+ ِ ْَ+ ُ+‫" َأ‬kّLD
ُْْ‫َ*?ا َأ‬g» :‫َ َل‬E ‫ْ ِ َأمْ َ` ؟‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ ُذآِ َ ا‬:‫ْرِي‬Lَ `َ ،ٍْWَِ+ ََُْ3 ً #َْE ‫ن‬
 ‫ُ َل ا ِ ِإ‬g‫َ َر‬3 :‫َ ُا‬E ً #َْE ‫ن‬  ‫ َأ‬، 'َ 8ِ"ِ#ْzُ*ْ‫ا‬
ِ ْ;ُْ ِ+ Lٍ ْ!َ. ’
َ 3ِLَD ‫ َوآَ ُا‬.«‫َوآُُا‬
Imam al-Darimi reports:
‫ن‬‫'أ‬ َ 8"#z*‫ ُأ ّم ا‬Cَ I} . '. ،ِ8+‫'ْ أ‬. ‫و َة‬. ' ِ + ‫ ِم‬I‫'ْ ه‬. ‫ن‬ َ *8g ' ُ +‫ ه ا‬، ' ِ *D‫ُا‬L. َ"َk Lٍ 8g ' ُ + Lُ *W# )‫أ‬
‫*?ا‬g» :‫ ل‬24 ` ‫ ِ أم‬8. ِ ‫ ُ ا‬g‫ري أ ُذآِ َ ا‬L ` ِ W + َ3 ً #E ‫ن‬  ‫ّ إ‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ِ ‫ ِل ا‬g ‫ ا‬E ً #E
C8‫ ه‬n+ Lٍ !. u93LD ‫أُ وآُُا« وآ ا‬

Imam al-Bayhaqi is more succinct in his narration and clearly reports that these new
Muslims used to bring the meat which was actually slaughtered. The Companions were
not sure whether the name of Allah SWT was properly pronounced or not due to their new
arrival to Islam. The Prophet (PBUH) told them to recite the Tasmiyah at the time of
consumption.

; ‫ اه ب أ‬L. '+ L*W‫ـ‬# "k ‫ب‬ َ 23 ' ُ + L*W‫ـ‬# s‫ ا‬L. +‫ أ أ‬ul‫آ‬Xَ ُ*‫ق اـ‬ َ Wg‫ ا‬u‫ـ‬+‫' أ‬+ 3‫ زآ‬+‫وأ) أ‬
m
َ 8‫ آ‬s‫ َل ا‬g‫َ>ََُا ر‬4 ، َ‫ُه‬Wَ+‫ َذ‬LE ‫ن‬ ٍ *ْW‫ُِـ‬+ ‫ن‬
َ َُْ3 Cِ 3‫' أه ِ ا د‬# ٌ‫ن  س‬ َ ‫ آ‬:‫ َل‬E 8‫ـ‬+‫' أ‬. ‫ م‬I‫ن أ ه‬ ٍ َْ. 'ُ+
.« َ‫ وآُُه‬s‫ َ ا‬g‫ْ!َ ا‬8‫ََـ‬. ‫َ*?ا‬g» :‫ َل‬24 ،َ‫_"ن‬3
`ً v# ,ُ ‫' َروَا‬# Cِ 3‫ روا‬/َ"َْ*‫ِـ‬+ ،َCI} . ِ ْ‫ن ِذآ‬
َ ‫Š دو‬ ً g# ‫ ٍم‬I‫' ه‬. Cَ َ*‫ََـ‬g 'ُ + ‫* ُد‬D‫ و‬b ٍ َ‫' َأ‬
ُ+U
ُ ِ َ# ,ُ ‫ روا‬U َ 
‫وآ‬

Imam Ibn Hajar observes the difference in the ending parts of these reports but concludes
that this difference does not render the reports unauthentic or unreliable. He also rejects
the idea that this incident took place in the early Makkan period. He makes it clear that

22
the verse of Surah al-Ana’m was revealed in Makkah while the Bedouins mentioned in
the above quoted report were from the outskirt of Madinah. Therefore the incident must
have taken place after the revelation of the verse of Tasmiyah and not before that. Ibn
Hajar writes:
u4 U # ‫ ” زاد‬C8‫ ه‬n+ ” ‫ داود‬u+‫ أ‬C3‫ روا‬u4‫ك ” و‬I+ ” L ) u+‫ أ‬C3‫ روا‬u4‫; ” و‬+ ” ©; u4‫ ;( و‬+) E
`‫ )و‬/  E ‫ول‬X E ‫اب آ ن‬n‫*ا أن ه
ا ا‬.X4 ‫م‬E ‫ دة‬3X‫ ا‬,
!+ ( LE‫Šم ” و‬gt‫ أول ا‬u4 U‫ ” وذ‬,)”
84 ‫ه‬#‫ & أ‬,‫د‬3 # >; ’3LW‫ ا‬u4‫ و‬،m8e ( ‫ وه‬:‫ ا‬L. '+‫ ل ا‬E (8. s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬3  *# ‫آ‬
C8# ‫ أن ا& م‬/. ‫ا‬2;‫ ا‬L24 ™3‫ وأ‬،‫ ا&آ‬L". C8*> + #& + RX R ‫ آ‬C3…‫ أن ا‬/. ‫ل‬L4 ‫ ا&آ‬L". C8*> +
54
C"3L*‫ أه ا‬C3‫ د‬+ ‫’ ه‬3LW‫ ا‬u4 !8‫ ر إ‬I*‫اب ا‬.&‫ وأن ا‬،C"3L* + ‫ ت‬C_2‫ ا‬,
‫وأن ه‬

Ibn Hajar also informs that there are some other additional phrases reported by other
scholars such as Ibn U’yanah, al-Tabarani and al-Tahawi which are authentic.

C3o ‫ دة‬3X‫ ا‬,

‫ وه‬،‫ا‬W+‫' ذ‬8D ‫*ا‬g !‫ أ‬/. ‫;ه‬D ‫* ! آا ” أي‬3‫وا أ‬L!‫ ” ا‬3‫ روا‬u4 C"88. '+‫وزاد ا‬
” ‫ ل‬E ' ,W L8g u+‫’ أ‬3LD '# u‫  أ)ج ا<ا‬،Cg# ,
‫ ه‬3‫ ' روا‬C2k C"88. '+‫ وا‬،’3LW‫ ه
ا ا‬u4
s‫ل ا‬g‫ ر‬C+ W_‫' ا‬# ‫ل  س‬g ” :” I*‫ ” ا‬u4 ‫ وي‬W<‫ و‬،‫ ت‬2k  ‫ه ” ور‬W+‫* ! أ! ذ‬3‫وا أ‬L!‫ا‬
‫م‬D # ‫وا‬T‫ ا‬:‫ ل‬E ،!#Šg‫ آ" إ‬# ‫ري‬L # '*g‫* ن و' و‬W+ "3 ^3‫ ر‬.‫ أ‬:‫ ا‬24 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v
55
8. s‫ ا‬g‫ اذآوا ا‬، 8> U+‫ آ ن ر‬#‫ و‬،".  ;. L24 ". Rg #‫ و‬،". ‫>ا‬#4 8. s‫ا‬
“Ibn U’yanah has narrated the following addition to this report,” test their faith and eat”,
meaning that ask those Bedouins to swear that they had pronounce the name of Allah
SWT at the time of slaughter. This addition is strange regarding this Hadith although Ibn
U’yanah is very authentic but this report of his is Mursal. Yes, al-Tabarani’s report from
Abi Saeed somewhat matches this narrations but he has reported that the Prophet
(PBUH), said, “Test their oaths that they had slaughtered.” The chain of transmitters of
this report is authentic… (Al-Tahawi’s report is also very similar.)”

Imam Shafa’i’ argues that if Tasmiyah was a condition for permissibility then its
omission will have not been allowed in any way or form especially in case of doubt or
forgetfulness. But here the Prophet (PBUH) is permitting consumption of the meat of
doubtful nature.
‫ ا_َ ِة‬uِ4 ‫ن آَ <!َ َر ِة‬
ِ َ8ْ>l" ِ+ ْRَ<َ2َg َ*ِ ًŒَْB ْRَ َ‫ َْ آ‬Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ن ا‬
 َِ‫ َو‬lUI‫ ا‬:َ َ# ِ ْ‫ِ َْآ‬+ َ‫َ َه‬#‫َْŒً َ*َ َأ‬B ْRَ َ‫َوَْ آ‬
56
uِg "‫ ا‬uِ4 َ*َ‫َ!َ آ‬# َ2َ# Cُ ِ*ْ‫ْ ا‬Rَ# َE ًŒَْB ْRَ َ‫َوَْ آ‬

Jamal al-Din al-Zayla’ee argues that the reason Prophet (PBUH) permitted them to eat
from that meat was due to his trust in the faith and sincerity of these converts. He
believed that the Muslim Bedouins must have been pronouncing the Tasmiyah as it was
not expected that a Muslim would ignore such a clear and known statute of Islam.57 This
interpretation seems more plausible because none of the Companions in the above-
mentioned report ever said that they were sure that the Bedouins did not recite the
Tasmiyah upon the slaughtered animals. At best one can insinuate from their inquiry is
that they were not sure whether the Bedouins have recited it or not. That is why Hanafi,

54
Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, 11, 63
55
Ibid, 11, 63
56
Al-Zayla’ee, Uthman bin Ali, Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq, 5, 287
57
Al-Zayla’ee, Jamal al-Din, Nusab al-Rayah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidayah, 6, 36

23
Maliki and Hanbali scholars quote this Hadith to prove that Tasmiyah is a must at the
time of slaughter. For instance Abd al-Aziz al-Bukhari maintains that:

ُْ‫ه‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ً4‫َُْو‬# ‫ن‬ َ َ‫ َأ ُ آ‬/ََ. ٌ8ِ‫َ َد‬Uِ‫ َو َذ‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬uِ4 U
l I‫ع ا‬ ِ ُE‫ ُو‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ِ ْ‫َ'ْ اَْآ‬. ْRَََg َ!َِ َ!ُ8ِLَ َ4 Cَ َIِ} َ. ’ ُ 3ِLَD #‫َوَأ‬
‫ع‬ُ Lَ َ3 َ َ ِْ>ُ*ْ‫ن ا‬
 ‫ هِ ِ َوهُ َ َأ‬T‫ ا‬/ََ. ‫ِ"َ ًء‬+ ِ ْ‫ اَْآ‬Cِ َD َ+iِ ِ+ ‫ ا>Šم‬8. u ? ِ"‫ ا‬/َْ4‫ َوِإ*َ َأ‬l ِWْ‫ََا}ِ—ِ ا‬B ْ'ِ# Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ن ا‬  ‫َأ‬
ِ ِ‫ ه‬T‫ ا‬/ََ. ‫ِ"َ ًء‬+ ‫ح َ ُ ا"َ ُو ُل‬ُ َُ3 َ'8ِ*ِْ>ُ*ْ‫ق ا‬ ِ ُg uِ4 ً*ْWَ ‫ََْى‬B‫ب آَ*َ'ْ ا‬ ِ ‫َْا‬.َْ‫َ'ْ ا‬. ‫ن‬
َ َ‫َا َل آ‬z?>‫ن ا‬  َِ ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ا‬
58
u
« ِgُnَ# Cُ َW8ِ+‫َُ َه ُ َأ ُ َذ‬3 ‫ن‬
َ َ‫َوِإنْ آ‬
“The proof for Tasmiyah in the Hadith of A’isha is that she asked whether it was
permissible to eat from that meat in case of the doubt regarding the Tasmiyah. It proves
that it was a known fact that Tasmiyah was a precondition for permissibility. The Prophet
(PBUH) permitted its consumption based upon the apparent trust that a Muslim would
never omit Tasmiyah intentionally. The people inquired about were the Bedouins (new
converts). It is just like that the meat sold in the Muslim market is permitted to be
consumed based upon the same trust even it was confused with the slaughtered animal of
a Zoroastrian.”

Uthman bin Ali al-Zayla’ee, another known Hanafi jurist, also derives the same
conclusion from the above quoted Hadith that A’isha (May Allah be Pleased with her)
inquired about it because she knew that it was not permitted to consume the meat which
was slaughtered without pronouncement of the name of Allah SWT.

ِ 8ِ4 ٌ‫َْط‬B u َ ِ‫ْ ِ َوه‬8ََ. u

َ l*ُg ‫َْآَُُ ُ إ إذَا‬3 َ ُْ!‫ َأ‬/ََ. ٌ8ِ‫ َد‬U
َ ِ‫ َو َذ‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬uِ4 U l I‫ع ا‬ِ ُE‫ ُو‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ِ ْ‫َ'ْ اَْآ‬. ْRَََg َ!َِ
ُ ‫ هِ ِ َأ‬T‫ ا‬/ََ. ‫ِ"َ ًء‬+ ِ ِ+ ‫ع‬
ُ َ;ِْ ِ‫ً َ َز َ ُ ا‬cْ8َB ‫ََْى‬B‫ك ¡َ هًِا آَ*َ'ْ ا‬ ُ َ ُْ3 َ ُ ‫ هِ ِ َأ‬T‫ ا‬/ََ. ‫ِ"َ ًء‬+ ِ ْ‫ِ َْآ‬+ َ‫َ َه‬#‫ َوِإ*َ َأ‬,
59
ُ ُِْ#

Al-Muhallab, on the other hand, contends that this Hadith lays the foundation for the rule
that Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter is not imperative but a recommended Sunnah.

/. ‫] دل‬+
‫ ا‬/. C8*>‫' ا‬. !8*> R+  *4 ،ً e4 R>8 C8*>‫ أن ا‬u4 v‫’ أ‬3LW‫ ه
ا ا‬:^!*‫ ل ا‬E
60
‫ض‬4 '. ‫ ` "ب‬C">‫ &ن ا‬C"g !‫أ‬
“This Hadith proves that Tasmiyah is not obligatory. The Tasmiyah of the Companions at
the time of consumption stood equal to Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter. Therefore,
Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter is a Sunnah and not a Fard, as a Sunnah can never
replace a Fard.”

Ibn Abd al-Birr al-Qurtubi, following Imam Shafa’i’’s lead, explains the evidential proof
from this Hadith in the following words:

Uَ ِ‫ َذ‬uِ4 َ*ِ ‫ْ!َ ؛‬8َ‫ُوبٌ ِإ‬Lْ"َ# ِ ْ‫ ا&آ‬/َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ن ا‬

 ‫ أ‬/َ. ‫ن‬ َ ُِ*ْnُ# ‫ن اَُ*َ َء‬  iِ َ4 ، ‫ُ  آُُه‬k ، !ْ8ََ. َ ‫َ*?ا ا‬g :ُ َُE #‫وَأ‬
ِ ‫ُ ُل ا‬g‫َ َل َ!ُْ َر‬E *‫ َوِإ‬،ِCَ8ِ‫ ا
ْآ‬/ِ‫ج إ‬
ُ َْWَ ` (Cَ َ*ِْŒ&‫ وا‬Cَ َْ8*‫ن )ا‬  & ‫ُُوطِ ا 
آَ ةِ؛‬B ْ'ِ# U َ ِ‫ َذ‬b
َ ْ8َ‫ َو‬،ِCَ‫' اََآ‬
َ ِ#
,ُ ُ #‫ وَأ‬،ُْ8َY‫ِ ِ إ` ا‬+ '? َTُ3 `َ‫ و‬،َِِW8ِ+‫ َذ‬/َ. Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬ َ َْ ِ ِ+ '
? َTُ3 ` َ ِْ>ُ*‫ن ا‬  ‫ُِْ*َ!ُ أ‬8ِ U
َ ِ‫ّ َذ‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v

58
Al-Bukhari, Abd al-Aziz, Kashf al-Asrar, 1, 259
59
Al-Zayla’ee, Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq, 5, 288
60
Al-Showkani, 4, 20

24
ٌC"ُg Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ن ا‬ ‫ أ‬/َ. ٌ8ِ‫َ;ْ"َ َد‬v‫* َو‬8ِ4‫ َو‬. ,ُ ُ ْ8َo ِ 8ِ4 '
َ 8ْ>َ3 /َD ،ُ,ُ ْ#‫ أ‬uِ;َ) َ# U َ ِ‫ َذ‬/َ. ٌ‫ْ*ُل‬Wَ#
61
œ
ِ ِ}‫' ا;َ َا‬
َ ِ# ُ َُ*َ. ^
َ َ‫َ َو‬# ُ—ِ2ْ>ُ3 ` ‫ن‬َ َ8ْ>l"‫ن ا‬
 & ‫َ نِ؛‬8ْ>l" + ْRَ<َ2َg َ# ً eَْ4 ْRَ َ‫ َوَْ آ‬،ٌCَ™3َِ4 ` ،ٌCَُ"ْ>َ#
“The scholars agree that the Tasmiyah is recommended at the time of eating due to
blessings connected with it. It is not a condition for slaughtering (Zakah) because the
dead animals and the foods do not need any slaughtering. The reason that the Prophet
(PBUH) asked them to recite and eat was to teach them that it was not expected of a
Muslim not to recite the name of Allah SWT at the time of slaughtering. Nothing but
goodness should be expected of a Muslim until something proves the otherwise. This
establishes that pronouncing the name of Allah SWT at the time of slaughter is a known
Sunnah and not an obligation. Had it been imperative its violation would have not been
permitted by forgetfulness (as the opposing group maintains) because the obligations are
not abandoned due to lack of memory.”

It is important to notice here the words of al-Qurtubi that:

'
? َTُ3 `َ‫ و‬،َِِW8ِ+‫ َذ‬/َ. Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬
َ َْ ِ ِ+ '
? َTُ3 ` َ ِْ>ُ*‫ن ا‬
 ‫ُِْ*َ!ُ أ‬8ِ U
َ ِ‫ّ َذ‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ِ ‫ُ ُل ا‬g‫َ َل َ!ُْ َر‬E *‫َوِإ‬
,ُْ8َo ِ 8ِ4 '
َ 8ْ>َ3 /َD ،ُ,ُ ْ#‫ أ‬uِ;َ) َ# U َ ِ‫ َذ‬/َ. ٌ‫ْ*ُل‬Wَ# ,ُ ُ #‫ وَأ‬،ُْ8َY‫ِ ِ إ` ا‬+
“The reason that the Prophet (PBUH) asked them to recite and eat was to teach them that
it was not expected of a Muslim not to recite the name of Allah SWT at the time of
slaughtering. Nothing but goodness should be expected of a Muslim until something
proves the otherwise.”

Al-Khattabi also plays out on the apparent doubtful circumstances surrounding the
Zabiha of the Bedouins and derives from this Hadith that Tasmiyah at the time of
slaughter is not required at all.
#& + CW8+
‫Œ ً  >] ا‬B R ‫ &!  آ‬،CW8+
‫ ا‬/. ‫ط‬B 8o C8*>‫ أن ا‬/. 8‫ د‬84 ‫ ل‬24 u+ <Y‫ا‬
'# ‫ ا
آ ة ا*ة أم `؟ وه
ا ه ا* در‬RE‫ ه و‬3 4 ،CW8+
‫ ا‬b; u4 UI‫ض ا‬.  *‫ آ‬،84 ‫ك‬I*‫ا‬
g‫!* أ أن 
آوا ا‬3 ‫ ا
ي‬+ U
+ ‫ ` !*ا‬:! 8E ‫ آ‬،‫*ا أ‬g :84 ‫اب‬n‫ ا‬:E‫’ و‬8D ’3LW‫ ق ا‬8g
62
‫ وآا‬s‫ا‬
“Al-Khattabi maintained that this Hadith shows that Tasmiyah is not a prerequisite for
slaughtering. Had it been a condition then the animal will not be allowed to be consumed
based upon doubtful circumstances…This is clear from the context of the Hadith that the
Prophet (PBUH) by his statement “you recite the Tasmiyah by yourself” told them, “do
not worry about the Tasmiyah. What is more important is that you recite the Tasmiyah by
yourself and eat.”

Al-Qurtubi gives another reason for the Prophetic response “recite by yourself and eat”.
He focuses upon the argument of certainty regarding the obligatory acts of worship:

C8*>‫ ا‬R ‫  آ‬:‫ ا‬E‫ و‬،’3LW‫!

ا ا‬+ C‫ا‬+ R>8 CW8+
‫ ا‬/. C8*>‫ أن ا‬/. ‫' أه ا‬# C. * ‫ل‬Lg‫ ا‬LE‫و‬
‫*' أن‬#‫ و‬،‫>*ا‬3 ‫*' أن‬# ‫ إذ‬،C3‫  د‬+ ‫اب‬.&‫ ا‬W+‫ ذ‬W ‫آ‬+ ‫ ـ ـ‬s‫ل ا‬g‫ه ر‬#‫ * أ‬CW8+L‫ ا‬/. ًe4 C‫وا‬
CD g‫ ا‬Xn3  ،8. C8*>‫ ا‬RWv # `‫' إ‬8*>*‫ }] ا‬+‫' ذ‬# ‫آ‬z3 `‫ أ‬v&‫!! و آ ن ا‬n s‫>*ا ا‬3 `
‫ ت‬#W*‫ ا‬+ ‫> ح‬3 ` ‫ ن‬#t‫ وا‬UI‫ وإذ ا‬،'828+ `‫دى إ‬z ` œ}‫ إذ ا;ا‬،C8*>‫' ا‬# '828+ `‫ إ‬U‫' ذ‬# ‫ء‬uB

61
Ibid
62
Al-Showkani, Ibid

25
 # 3W‫ و‬،C8*‫ ا‬3W /. ‫* )ج‬i4 ، {8. s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬3  *# ‫ }و` آا‬:‫ و ّ ـ‬Xّ . ‫ ـ‬s‫ل ا‬E #‫ وأ‬:‫ ا‬E
63
C3…‫ ا‬RX U‫ ذ‬u4‫ و‬s‫ ا‬8Z + ‫] "_^ وأه‬+‫ذ‬
“On the basis of this Hadith a group of scholars have argued that the Tasmiyah is not
obligatory. The Prophet (PBUH) would have not allowed them to eat from the meat
brought by the Bedouins had it been obligatory to recite the Tasmiyah at the time of
slaughtering. It was a possibility that the Bedouins might have recited the Tasmiyah or
might have not done so because of their ignorance. If the original rule was that the meat
slaughtered by a Muslim would not be permitted until he had recited the Tasmiyah then it
would have not been allowed except after ascertaining the fact that it was done so by the
Bedouins. Certainty is a must in the matters of obligations and just a guess or doubt
would not permit use of unlawful things. This group of scholars also maintained that the
verse of Tasmiyah did refer to the dead animals, to the animals slaughtered in the name of
other than Allah SWT such as idols. The verse was revealed in that context.”

Almost the same interpretation of the above Hadith is reported from Ibn al-Munzari.
‫ع ا
آ ة‬E‫' و‬283 /D 3W‫ ا‬/. !v‫ أ‬C*8!‫ &ن ا‬U‫ وذ‬،]+
‫ ا‬L". C‫ وا‬8o C8*>‫ أن ا‬/. 8‫ د‬84
'T‫>' ا‬D /. !84 #&‫* ا‬W3 ‫ أن‬Xn3  ‫ط ا
آ ة‬B '# C8*>‫ ا‬R ‫ آ‬4 ،84 ‫ك‬I*‫ ا‬#& + ‫ ` > ح‬u!4
64
!‫> ح أآ‬84 !+
“This Hadith demonstrates that the Tasmiyah is not obligatory at the time of slaughter.
The cattle are unlawful until slaughtered (with proper Zakah rules). It must be ascertained
that these rules are followed. Its permissibility cannot be based upon mere doubt. It
would have not been permitted to consume the meat based upon good faith had the
Tasmiyah been a precondition for proper slaughtering.”

Contrary to that, Ibn al-Malik, al-Nawawi, Ibn al-Teen and many others argue that this
Hadith does not refer to the issue of Zabiha at all. It relates to the Sunnah of Tasmiyah at
the time of eating and not at the time of slaughtering. A Muslim is expected to slaughter
an animal in the name of Allah SWT anyway and should not be doubted except with some
clear indications to prove otherwise. Ibn al-Malik maintains that:

C8*>‫ ن أن ا‬8+ 84 + u‫ ا*

آ‬C8*> '. ‫ ا…ن "ب‬8*> ‫ أن‬, "# b8 :U*‫' ا‬+‫ ل ا‬E :(‫ وآا‬s‫*ا ا‬g)
W8+‫_] أآ ذ‬3 '*# ]+‫_] أآ إذا آ ن ا
ا‬3 W+‫ ذ‬L". 8. s‫ ا‬g‫ا أذآ ا‬4  # ‫ ا&آ وأن‬L". CW>#
65
‫ ا_Šح‬/. >*‫ ل ا‬W Šً *D
“It does not mean that your Tasmiyah now would stand for the Tasmiyah at the time of
slaughtering. It shows that the Tasmiyah is recommended at the time of eating. It will be
permitted to eat from a Muslim’s zabiha in case of uncertainty about the Tasmiyah
because goodness should be expected from a Muslim all the times.”

Al-Nawawi, rejecting many reports narrated about forgetfulness at the time of

slaughtering, maintains that the above quoted Hadith addresses the issue of Tasmiyah at
the time of eating and not at the time of animal slaughter.

63
Al-Qurtubi, al-Istizkar, 5, 248
64
A’own al-Ma’bu’d, Ibid
65
Ibid

26
‫’ ه‬3LW‫!
ا ا‬4 ،‫اب‬B ‫ب آ‬B‫ أآ آ Œ م و‬L". CW>*‫ ا‬C8*>‫ ا‬,
‫*ا وآا« ه‬g» E‫ و‬: "+ Wv‫ ل أ‬E
R3‫ أرأ‬s‫ل ا‬g‫ ر‬3 :‫ ل‬24 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫ ا‬/‫ » ء ر إ‬:‫ ل‬E ‫ة‬3‫ ه‬u+‫’ أ‬3‫ د‬D‫ وأ‬،C>*‫ ا‬u4 L**‫ا‬
:*n# "# ’3LD ‫!
ا‬4 «># ‫ آ‬/. s‫ ا‬g‫ ا‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫ ل ا‬24 ‫؟‬u*>3 ‫ أن‬/>"3‫] و‬+
3 ‫ا‬
66
+ ¦W3 `‫" و‬# ‫' أ‬8+‫ و‬u2!8‫ ا‬,‫; ذآ‬e /.
“This Hadith constitutes basis for the rule that Tasmiyah is recommended every time one
eats or drinks. The Hadith narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that someone asked
the Prophet (PBUH) about a person who forgot Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter. The
Prophet (PBUH) said,” The name of Allah is upon every Muslim.” This Hadith is
rejected by all. Al-Bayhaqi has reported it among the rejected Ahadith and explained that
it is unacceptable.”

Ibn al-Teen also argues that the Hadith refers to the Tasmiyah at the time of eating.
67
‫ ا&آ‬L". "‫ ه‬C8*>‫اد ا‬3 ‫* أن‬W3 :'8‫' ا‬+‫ ل ا‬E‫و‬

Contrary to this, Ibn Kathir, like al-Zayla’ee and others, argues that the Hadith gives
ample evidence that Tasmiyah is a must.
!#Šg‫ إ‬Ck‫ا‬LW Uc‫' أو‬# ‫ت‬L‫ا أن ` ن و‬I) !‫ وأ‬، !"# L+ ` C8*>‫!*ا أن ا‬4 !‫ أ‬C`L‫وو ا‬
“The evidence lies in the fact that they were of the understanding that the Tasmiyah is a
must and they were afraid that the people who brought the meat might have not recited it
(at the time of slaughter) due to their recent conversion to Islam.”

The Prophet (PBUH) advised them that a Muslim is not expected to slaughter an animal
without pronouncing the name of Allah SWT even if he is a new convert. The Prophet
(PBUH) ordered them to recite the Tasmiyah at the time of consumption as a
precautionary measure.”‫ ا&آ‬L". C8*> + ‫ ط‬8D` + ‫ه‬#4

Abu Bakr al-Jassas also argues that the above-mentioned Hadith does not prove that
Tasmiyah is not required at the time of slaughtering.

‫ر‬#‫ أن أ‬v&‫ }آا{ &ن ا‬:‫ ل‬E "‫ و‬،C8*>‫' ك ا‬# 8. #‫ و‬:‫ ل‬2 ‫ط ا
آ ة‬B '# C8*>‫  ' ا‬4
C`L+ `‫ز إ‬n3 ` #‫ ا;> د و‬/. *W Š4 CW_‫از وا‬n‫ ا‬/. C*W# '8*>*‫ا‬
“If the Tasmiyah was not a prerequisite to lawful slaughtering then the Prophet (PBUH)
would have told them, “you are not obligated for anything if you abandoned the
Tasmiyah.” In opposition to that he asked them to eat it because the original rule
concerning these matters is permissibility and this rule would not be changed to
prohibition except with clear evidence demanding so.”

It is important to notice here that the concerned Bedouins were Muslims. It is expected
that they would have known the basic rules of Islam such as what is lawful and what is
unlawful. The animal slaughter and meat consumption is a matter of daily routine. It will
not be expected that the concerned Bedouins would be totally unaware of the Islamic way
of slaughtering after coming across many Muslims in Madinah and knowing their
routines through daily encounter and business with them. It seems more plausible that the
Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were over conscientious about the overall method of

66
Al-Nawawi, al-Majmu’,8, 275
67
Al-Showkani, Ibid

27
slaughtering and wanted to make sure that they did not end up eating meat of an animal,
slaughtered improperly. The Prophet (PBUH) ordered them to recite the Tasmiyah at the
time of eating in an effort to alleviate their concerns, not expecting that a Muslim would
not recite the name of Allah SWT at the time of Zabh. Imam al-Zayla’ee confirms that
these Bedouins were accustomed to reciting Tasmiyah.
68
‫ن‬
)*+
,.
- ‫*ا‬/0)‫ آ‬213-04‫أ‬
َ 
/‫ه‬ِ4
9‫ا‬,‫و‬
“It is evident that they used to recite the Tasmiyah.”

The Islamic rules of Tazkiyah are more complicated than the Tasmiyah. Is it possible that
the Prophet (PBUH) would ignore the rules of Tazkiyah and allow the Muslims to eat
from the animal not slaughtered Islamically just by reciting Tasmiyah at the time of
consumption? No jurist accepts that just pronouncing the name of Allah SWT would
make the meat permissible to be consumed even if the animal was not slaughtered
according to Tazkiyah rules. These rules cannot be violated as the Qur’an has amply
made it clear by commanding ُْْ8‫َ َذآ‬# `‫“إ‬you are not permitted to consume the animals
except the one’s you have slaughtered (according to Tazkiyah rules).” Learning about
reciting the name of Allah SWT at the time of slaughter is less complicated than learning
about the rules connected with the process of Tazkiyah. As a result, it seems more
plausible that the Prophet (PBUH) gave the Bedouins the benefit of the doubt and
expected that they had followed the rules of Tazkiyah and Tasmiyah since there was
nothing to prove otherwise. He asked the Companions to recite the Tasmiyah as a Sunnah
act recommended at consumption or as a precautionary measure, as Ibn Kathir and others
have observed.

It is significant to notice that the minority of scholars who agree with Imam Shafa’i’’s
position that this Hadith proves that Tasmiyah is a recommended Sunnah and not a Fard
at the time of slaughter, also agree with the interpretation of the second group, that the
Prophet (PBUH) allowed consumption of the meat based upon the principle of trust that a
Muslim would not abandon the Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter. This group of scholars
also agrees that a Muslim must be trusted to have recited the name of Allah SWT upon
slaughtering the animal until proven otherwise. This position seems to be supporting the
argument that it is not expected from a Muslim to intentionally abandon the Tasmiyah
due to its significance in Islamic Law. There is a division within this minority group. A
minority within this minority maintains that the above quoted Hadith refers to the issue of
Tasmiyah at the time of slaughtering the animals. The others such as al-Nawawi maintain
that the above-mentioned Hadith refers to the issue of reciting Tasmiyah at the time of
eating the food and is not connected with the issue of Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter.
This difference of opinion within this minority weakens their position and diminishes the
strength of their argument.

Moreover, Imam Shafa’i’’s interpretation is a bit odd that the verse “do not eat from the
meat upon which the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced” refers only to the dead
animals or to the ones slaughtered in the name of idols. Such an interpretation does not
stand ground once scrutinized closely. Firstly, it is based upon one Companion’s opinion.

68
Al-Zayla’ee, Nusab al-Rayah, 6, 38

28
It is a well established Fiqhi rule that one person’s opinion or analogy cannot restrict the
crystal clear Qur’anic verses. Abd al-Aziz al-Bukhari explains this rule:

ََ4 ‫ن‬ِ 8l"َ¡ َ*ُ!َِ ‫س‬

ُ َ8ِ2ْ‫ وَا‬Lِ ِD‫ََ ِ اَْا‬Yِ+ ُ ُ_8ِ_ْYَ ‫ُ ُز‬nَ3 َ ْ‫ص َأي‬ َ ُ_ُYْ‫َْ*ِ ُ ا‬Wَ3 َ ‫ اْ*ََُاِ َ ِة‬Cِ "?>‫ب وَا‬ ِ َِْ‫ِ'ْ ا‬# ‫اَْ م‬
‫ ِم‬Lَ َ. ْ'ِ# ََْ‫َ َذآ‬# ْ‫ هَ
َا َأي‬u  ِْ<َ2ْ‫َُ ِرضُ ا‬3 َ u ? l"T‫ وَا‬Cِ َe‫( اْ*َُ َر‬
ِ 3َِ<ِ+ §
َ 8ِ_ْY‫ن ا‬  َِ َ*ِ!ِ+ u l ِْ<َ2ْ‫§ ا‬ ُ 8ِ_ْYَ ‫ُ ُز‬nَ3
69
َ*ِ!ِ+ §
ِ 8ِ_ْY‫ََا ِز ا‬

Bukhari substantiates this known Fiqhi rule by giving evidence from the actions of the
Caliphs Abu Bakr and U’mar (May Allah be Pleased with them). Abu Bakr required the
Companions to reject all those Prophetic reports which contradicted the Qur’anic verses.
U’mar rejected the report of Fatimah bint Qays saying that we could not abandon the
Qur’anic verse just because of a lady’s report, whose credibility is not established. A’isha
herself rejected (Ibn Umar’s statement) that a dead person suffered if the family cried out
loud because it contradicted the Qur’anic verse that said, “Nobody carries the burden of
others.” Bukhari states:

uِ+‫ب َأ‬ ِ َWْv‫َ ِ َأ‬9ْ‫َْ ُل َأآ‬E َ ُ‫ن َوه‬ َ َ+‫' َأ‬ ِ ْ+ /َ>8ِ.‫ص َو‬ ِ _َnْ‫َْ ٍ ا‬+ uِ+‫َ'ْ َأ‬. U َ ِ‫ِ َ َذ‬2ُ‫َُ*َ }ِ"َ َو‬. ^
ِ َ‫َ
ْه‬# ْ'ِ# ‫ْ!ُ ُر‬Iَ*ْ‫هُ َ ا‬
s‫ ا‬ue‫ ر‬Cَ َIِ} َ.‫س َو‬ ٍ َ. ' ِ ْ+ ِ ‫ ا‬Lِ َْ.‫ُ*َ َ َو‬.‫َْ ٍ َو‬+ uِ+‫َْ ُل َأ‬E َ ُ‫ْ™ً َوه‬3‫ َأ‬u l ِِ4 I‫ب ا‬ ِ َWْv‫œ َأ‬ ِ َْ+ ‫َْ ُل‬E َ ُ‫ َوه‬Cَ َ;8ِ"َD
Cَ َ*ِŒ َ4 ’َ 3ِLَD ‫" َر د‬. s‫ ا‬ue‫ُ*َ ُ ر‬.‫ب َو‬ ِ َِِْ m
ٍ ِ َYُ# ’ ٍ 3ِLَD  ُ‫َ ُد?وا آ‬3 ْ‫َِن‬+ ُْ‫َ َه‬#‫ َوَأ‬Cَ َ+ َW_‫ ا‬:َ َ*َ ٍ ْَ+ َ+‫ن َأ‬ iِ َ4 !".
ْ‫ْ َو َر دت‬Rَ+
َ َ‫ْ َأمْ آ‬RَELَ َv‫ْرِي َأ‬Lَ َ ‫ْ ََأ ٍة‬#‫َْ ِل ا‬2ِ+ ِ ‫ب ا‬
َ َِ‫ك آ‬ ُ ُ َْ َ ‫َ َل‬E‫ َو‬Cَ َ2َ;"‫( ا‬ ? ِWَْ>َ َ َ!‫ َأ‬Cِ ََُْ*ْ‫ ا‬uِ4 b
ٍ ْ8َE R ِ ْ"ِ+
70
{ ‫ ُر وَا ِز َرةٌ ِوزْ َر ُأ)َْى‬Xِ َ َ‫َ َ ُ } َو‬Wُْg ُ ََْE ْRََ‫ُِَ ِء َأهِْ ِ َو‬+ ِRl8َ*ْ‫^ ا‬ ِ 3ِ
َْ ’
َ 3ِLَD !". s‫ ا‬ue‫ ر‬Cُ َIِ} َ.

Secondly, most of the reports that attribute this interpretation to Ibn Abbas are
inconsistent.

Thirdly, the unlawful nature of the dead animals or the animals slaughtered for the idols
does not need any indirect reference as is the case with the above mentioned verse. The
Qur’an has addressed that issue more directly in other verses such as “Forbidden to you
(for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked
the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent
blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly)
eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is
sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with
arrows: that is impiety…” There is no need for an indirect reference after such a strong
and crystal clear command.

Fourthly, if this interpretation is accepted then the meaning of the verse will be, that not
taking the name of Allah SWT has rendered those animals dead. The opposite logic will
be that Tasmiyah would turn the dead animals into a lawful category. Would it be
permitted to eat from the dead animal or any other category of the above mentioned
animals by just reciting the Tasmiyah upon them? Or would it be allowed to eat from an
animal which was slaughtered at the altar of an idol even if it was done with the rules of
Tasmiyah and Tazkiyah? The answer is “No” because Allah SWT had forbidden such a
consumption in other verses such as the just quoted verse of Surah al-Maidah.

69
Ibid, Kashf al-Asrar, 1, 295
70
Ibid, 1, 295

29
Fifthly, if the verse is understood to have referred to the dead animals then it would prove
the opposite of what Imam Shafa’i’ and his students have tried to show. This will require
that Tasmiyah is the prerequisite for lawfulness and any animal slaughtered without
Tasmiyah will be Haram like a dead body. That is not the case with the forgetful
omission, as the majority of the scholars maintain.

Abu Bakr al-Jassas contends:

/. ‫*ا‬g ‫' وإن‬8‫آ‬I*‫*" أن ا‬. LE‫ و‬،C8*>‫ ذآ ك ا‬/. _23 ‫' 
آه و‬8‫آ‬I*‫ }] ا‬+‫ آ ن ا*اد ذ‬4
 ‫! أو‬8. s‫*ا ا‬g C‫آ‬# 8o !W} +‫ ذ‬R ‫'؛ إذ آ‬8‫آ‬I*‫ }] ا‬+‫د ذ‬3  ‫ أ‬/. U‫ ذ‬9# ‫آ‬z  !W} +‫ذ‬
/. ]+‫ ذ‬#‫ }و‬:/  E ‫ وه‬C3…‫ ا‬,
‫ ه‬8o u4 '8‫آ‬I*‫ }] ا‬+‫ ذ‬3W /. /  s‫ § ا‬LE‫ و‬،‫>*ا‬3
 ‫؛ إذ‬C8*>‫ك ا‬+ C8‫> د ا
آ‬4 /. C*} E C3…‫ ا‬C`‫ د‬R  C8*‫' أو ا‬8‫آ‬I*‫ }] ا‬+‫ أراد ذ‬4 ™3‫ا"_^{ وأ‬
C8# !4 8. C8*>‫ ا‬R‫ آ‬# ‫ أن آ‬/. U‫ل ذ‬L4 ،C8#  *. C8*>‫ك ا‬
“If the reference in the verse was to the animals slaughtered by the polytheists He (SWT)
would have clearly mentioned that, and would have not confined just to the mention of
absence of Tasmiyah. We already know that such a slaughtered animal would not be
lawful to eat even if the name of Allah SWT was pronounced upon it. Therefore it is clear
that Allah SWT did not refer in this verse to the polytheists as their slaughtering renders
the animal unlawful anyway whether they pronounce the name of Allah SWT or not. The
Qur’an clearly states “whatever was slaughtered at the altar”. Moreover, if we accept that
the reference in the verse is to the animals slaughtered by the polytheists or to the dead
animals then the verse would mean that not reciting the name of Allah SWT at the time of
slaughter would turn the animal into the unlawful category of dead animals. Because
abandoning Tasmiyah would be tantamount to slaughtering the animal in the name of
other than Allah SWT or to the dead animal. (And no jurist would accept that.)”

Therefore, it seems more plausible to accept that the verse refers to the animals
slaughtered without pronouncing the name of Allah SWT by the people whose slaughter
is accepted by the Shari’ah. This will include the Muslims as well as People of the Book.
The verse will not be confined only to the dead animals and other unlawful categories
even if we were to accept the interpretation of Imam Shafa’i’. The verse is generic and its
ruling would not be restricted only to a few categories of animals just because it alluded
to them, as Imam Shafa’i’ contends. This is a well know Fiqhi rule. Al-Jassas brings the
point home.

^>‫' ا‬# .‫ *م إذا آ ن أ‬W‫ ا‬+ 8. !*W+ ‫_ ر‬E`‫^ ا‬3 ` ^g /. C3…‫ول ا‬X
71

“Revelation of a verse as a response to a specific cause would not restrict its ruling only
to that cause but the ruling will be generic if the implications of the rule are wider than
the cause itself.”

Abd al-Aziz Al-Bukhari explains the point more clearly:

*ِ#  َ.‫ب َأ‬
ٍ ‫ََا‬nِ+ ‫ب‬ َ َ‫ َأ‬/َ ََ َ ‫ن ا‬  َ‫ إ أ‬Cِ َْ8َ*ْ‫ ا‬uِ4 ُْ!َُ‫َ َد‬nُ# Cِ َ3\ْ‫ُو ِل ا‬Xُ ^ َ ََg ‫ن‬  ‫ َأ‬/ََ. ‫ ?ل‬Lُ َ3 §
 "‫ن هَ
َا ا‬  ‫َ*ْ"َ َأ‬g َ"ُْE
َ 3ِْW‫ن ا‬ َِ /َ ََ ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬g‫ك ِذآْ ِ ا‬
ُ َْ َ ُ‫ْ َهَ َوه‬8َo‫ َو‬Cَ َْ8َ*ْ‫ْ*َ ُ ا‬Iَ3 m ٍ ْv‫ َو‬/ََ. Cُ َ#ُْWْ‫ ا‬u َ ِ‫ ِ َوه‬3ِXْ"‫ب ا‬ ُ ْ‫ََُا آَ*َ هُ َ َدأ‬g
Cَ َ‫َُْوآ‬# َ!َِْِ ْRَ#l ُD Cَ َْ8َ*ْ‫ن ا‬  ‫َ ً َأ‬8َ+ Cُ َ3\ْ‫ن ا‬
ُ ُَ8َ4 Cِ َْ8َ*ْ َ‫ آ‬Cِ َ#ُْWِْ ^
ُ ُِ*ْ‫ هُ َ ا‬mَ ْvَ ْ‫ ا‬U َ ِ‫ن َذ‬
 ‫ َأ‬/ََ. ٌ8ِ‫ َد‬m ٍ ْvَ ِ+
]ِ ِ} َ+‫ َذ‬/ََ.‫ َو‬Cِ َl8َ*ْ‫ ا‬/ََ. ْRَِ*ُD ‫ذَا‬iِ َ4 ِ 8ِ4 ٌlkzَ ُ# ‫ت‬ ِ َْ*ْ‫ ا‬mَ ْv‫ن َو‬  ‫ آَ*َ َأ‬Cِ َ#ُْWْ‫ت ا‬
ِ َْk‫ إ‬uِ4 ٌlkzَ ُ# m َ ْvَ ْ‫ن هَ
َا ا‬  ‫ َوَأ‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ا‬
71
Al-Jassas, Abu Bakr

30
 َ ُ ‫ْ ِ َوَأ‬8ََ. ‫ص‬
ِ ُ_ْ"َ*ْ‫ ا‬m
ِ ْvَ ْ‫ْ<َ ُل ا‬+‫ ِ إ‬8ِ4 ‫ن‬
َ َ‫ اْ*َ
ْآُ ِر آ‬m
ِ ْvَ ْ‫َِْ ِر هَ
َا ا‬.‫ْ ِ ا‬8َo ْ'ِ# ُ ْ_َYْ‫ ا‬,ُ َ َ‫' آَ*َ َذآ‬
َ 8ِ‫ْ ِآ‬Iُ*ْ‫ا‬
72
‫ُ ُز‬nَ3
“Say even if we agree that this text proves that the verse was revealed as a response to
their argumentation about the dead animal (that does not mean that its ruling is confined
only to the dead animal) because Allah SWT responded to their argument with something
more generic and comprehensive as is always the case with the Qur’anic revelations. The
generic rulings came to declare the dead animals as well as others as Haram i.e., the
one’s upon which the name of Allah SWT was not recited. When the unlawfulness is
attributed to a reason or to an act, then that reason or act becomes the original source of
such unlawfulness. In the case of a dead animal the Qur’an states that the dead animal
was declared Haram because the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced upon it. This
characterization is the source of its non permissibility as death itself is a reason for it. It is
not permitted to carry the verse to mean that it refers only to the dead animals or the
animals which are slaughtered at the altar of various idols, as the opposite party argues,
without primarily referring to the original characterization or reason that is the main
thrust of the Qur’anic verse (the omission of Tasmiyah).”

Ibn A’shur also observes that a specific context of revelation would not limit the wider
implications of the verse: This is the understanding of the majority of classical jurists
about the verse.
‫! ء‬2;‫ ل *!ر ا‬# ‫ ر‬.`‫ ه
ا ا‬/‫ وإ‬،^ّ>‫_رة ا‬+ §
ّ Y3 Š4 ،ّ‫^ ) ص‬g /. ‫' ا ّم اارد‬# C3…‫ ا‬R ‫آ‬
73
CW8+ّ
‫ ا‬/. C8*>ّ‫ ا‬D u4 '8;Y*‫ا‬

In conclusion, we can say that this verse of Surah al-An’am is emphatic about the non
permissibility of animals slaughtered without the name of Allah SWT. Its rulings may
include the dead body or the animals sacrificed for the idols but its original ruling stands
unaltered. This is in addition to the fact that the Qur’anic verses and Ahadith which
strongly stress the need for the Tasmiyah and Tazkiyah are more frequent, more direct
and more authentic than the verses and Ahadith quoted by Imam Shafa’i’ to prove
otherwise. The Qur’anic verses and the Ahadith use both positive and negative
constructions to emphasize that Tasmiyah is very significant.

'
َ 8ِ"ِ#ْzُ# ‫َـِٰ ِۦ‬3 َٔ‫ِـ‬+ ُ"ُ‫ْ ِ إِن آ‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬g‫ِ* ُذآِ َ ٱ‬# ‫َُُا‬4
“Thus eat from (the animal) on which the name of Allah SWT was recited, if you indeed
believe in His verses (revelation).” (6:118)
And also ْ8ََ. ُ ّ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَ ِ ا‬3 ِْ *ِ# ‫“ وَ` َآُُا‬And do not eat from (the animal) upon which the
name of Allah SWT was not mentioned.” Al-Jassas puts the point in a nutshell.

ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ َ# َ َ‫ْآ‬zُ3 `َ‫َ ََأ أ‬E ْ'َ# ‫ي‬ ِ ْ‫ َرأ‬/ََ. ‫ب‬ِ َ<ِYْ‫ ِ ا‬8ِLَ ِ+ uِ™ْ2َ3 {ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ِ* ُذآِ َ ا‬# ‫َُُا‬4} :/َ ََ َْE :ُ
َ َ)…‫ن ا‬  ‫ َأ‬/ََ. ‫ ?ل‬Lُ َ8َ4 ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫َ ُذآَِ ا‬# َ ُ‫ َوه‬،ِ‫ْء‬uI‫ْ ا‬uَ;ْv‫ َو‬Lِ َD‫ َأ‬/ََ. ِ ْ‫ُْ َ َوهُ َ ََا ُز ا َ&آ‬Wْ‫( ا‬ َ َ. ُ &َ ‫ْ ِ ؛‬8ََ.
‫ }وَ` َْآُُا‬:uِ 9‫ِ ِ ا‬+ َ2ُ*ْ‫ ا‬uِ4 ‫َ َل‬2َ4 ،ِ'ْ8َW3َِv ' ِ ْ8َ#Šَِ+ َ*ِ!8ِ4 َ ََ‫ َو‬،ِ'ْ8_َ"ِ+ '
ِ ْ8َ*ْُWْ‫' ا‬َ 8َ+ /َ ََ َ ‫ن ا‬  ‫ َأ‬Lَ ْ8َ+ ،ِِ4ŠِYِ+
74
{ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ#

72
Al-Bukhari, Kashf, 1, 295
73
Ibn A’shur, Muhammad al-Tahir, al-Tahri’r wa al-Tanwi’r, Maktabah al-Abikan,
74
Al-Jassas

31
“The Divine commandment that “eat from what was slaughtered in the name of Allah
SWT” by its very nature demands that something upon which the name of Allah SWT is
not recited should not be eaten. The reason is that Allah SWT connected the permission
with one of the characteristics i.e., upon which the Tasmiyah was pronounced. This
correlation automatically leads to the fact that the opposite is prohibited. (Here Allah
SWT did not confine only to the positive reinforcement of the commandment but) brought
an explicit verse to promulgate the opposite side of the rule also so that both positive and
negative aspects of the ruling are established through a valid text. In opposition to the
first text, He said in the second verse, “And do not eat from what was not slaughtered in
the name of Allah.”

Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Babarti states:

‫َُْوك‬# ِ ْ‫َ'ْ َأآ‬. Cِ 8ِE‫َْا‬Zِْg ِ‫ِ*ِ'ْ ا‬+ ,ُ Lُ 8ِ‫ َوهُ َ َْآ‬, ٍ ْ‫َْ ِ­ َو‬+َِ+ u
َ ْ!"‫ ِ ا‬8ِ4 ‫ن‬
 iِ َ4 { ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫} َوَ َْآُُا‬
75
ٍ ْ_َ4 ِ ْ8َo ْ'ِ# Cَ َ#ُْWْ‫ ا‬uِ™َْ2َ3 ِ ِE َْŒِiِ+ َ ُ‫ َوه‬, Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ا‬
“The Qur’anic injunction “Do not eat from what was not slaughtered in the name of Allah
SWT” contains the prohibition to the utmost high level. The emphatic use of the word
“min” covers every part of that animal. That animal in its entirety is Haram without any
exception or partition.”

Again in the verse of hunting and the reports from A’diyy bin Hatim both positive and
negative construction are used to substantiate that only the animals slaughtered in the
name of Allah SWT are permitted for consumption and those which were not slaughtered
in the name of Allah SWT are unlawful and hence prohibited from consumption by
Muslims. It is also an established fact that the verse of hunting and the multiple Ahadith
of A’diyy bin Hatim are more authentic and direct than the weak Ahadith quoted by the
other group. In the interpretation of the verse (6:121) Imam Shafa’i’ is solely depending
upon one Companion’s views. Most of the narrations brought by Imam Shafa’i’ to
substantiate his point are questionable. The authentic report of A’ishah about the
Bedouins of Madinah perhaps is the only Hadith which can be quoted to show that the
Tasmiyah is not obligatory. However, it has been understood by different jurists in
different ways, so it is not conclusive. It is quoted by different groups and scholars to
prove divergent view points. There is a consensus among all the jurists about the fact that
the Hadith of A’isha does not prove in any way or form that the Companions were certain
that the Tasmiyah was not recited by the Bedouins at the time of slaughter. The only
thing which is certain is that the Companions were not sure whether the Tasmiyah was
recited or not. This gives more weight to the argument that the Companions knew that
Tasmiyah was a must. Otherwise, they would have not even inquired about it.

Jamal al-Din al-Zayla’ee observes that Imam Shafa’i’’s this conclusion goes against the
Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijma’.
76
‫َْدُودًا‬# ‫ن‬
َ ََ4 Cِ #ُْ‫ع ا‬
ِ َ*ْ‫ َوِإ‬, Cِ "?>‫ب وَا‬
ِ َِْ‫ِ'ْ ا‬# u
l ِْ<َ2ْ‫ ِ ا‬8ِL ِ ٌmِ َYُ# ,ُ ‫َ َروَا‬#‫َو‬
“What he has narrated goes against the categorical arguments from the Qur’an, the
Sunnah and the consensus of the Ummah. As a result it was absolutely rejected.”
He further observes that:

75
Al-Babarti, Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Mahmud, al-A’inayah, Dar al-Fikr, 9, 490
76
Al-Zayla’ee, Tabyeen, 5, 278

32
 ًْv‫َْ ُ َأ‬2ُ3 َ‫ِ ِ َو‬+ ُ َ*َْ‫ُ ُز ا‬nَ3 ََ4 ‫ب‬
77
ِ َِْ‫® ¡َ هِ ِ ا‬
َ ْ>َ uِ™َْ2َ3 ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬
ِ ‫َُْو‬# l ِD
“To allow consumption of an animal upon which the Tasmiyah was intentionally omitted
requires abrogation of conspicuously manifest (verses) of the Book (the Qur’an).
Therefore it must not be acted upon and even not accepted in the first place.”

Moreover, the actions of the Prophet (PBUH) himself are against this interpretation as he
has never consumed any meat not slaughtered in the name of Allah SWT. There are many
authentic reports that indicate that the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) also were very
particular about the Tasmiyah and would not eat from the meat upon which there was the
slightest doubt that the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced. For instance Imam
Malik reports the following about Abdallah bin A’yyash:

‫ََ* أرَا َد‬4 .Cً َW8ِ+‫] َذ‬ َ َ+ْ

َ3 ‫ ً َ ُ أن‬#Šُo َ َ#‫ أ‬u ِ#‫ُو‬XْYَ*‫ ا‬Cَ ََ8ِ+‫ َر‬u+‫' أ‬ ِ ْ+ ‫ش‬
ِ 8َ. ' ِ ْ+ ِ ‫ ا‬Lَ َْ. ‫ن‬
 ‫ٍ؛ أ‬L8َِg ' ِ ْ+ /َ8ْWَ3 ْ'َ. ،ٌUِ َ#
Lُ َْ. ُ َ ‫َ َل‬2َ4 .َ ‫ ا‬R
ُ ْ8*َg ْLَE :ُ َ ‫َ َل‬E .U
َ َWْ3‫ ا َ َو‬l َg :ُ َ ‫َ َل‬2َ4 .R
ُ ْ8*َg ْLَE :‫ُŠ ُم‬Z‫َ َل َ ُ ا‬2َ4 .َ ‫ ا‬l َg :ُ َ ‫َ َل‬E َ!َWَ+ْ
َ3 ْ‫أن‬
،ً‫ا‬Lْ*َ. Cِ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬/َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬ َ َ َ '# ‫ أن‬uِ4 ٌ]ِe‫’ٌ وَا‬3ِLَD ‫ هَ
َا‬:َ َ*ُ. ُ+‫َ َل أ‬E .‫ًا‬Lَ+‫ ` أŒَْ*ُ!َ أ‬.ِ ‫ َوا‬:‫ش‬ ٍ 8َ. ' ُ ْ+ ِ ‫ا‬
.Uَ ِْ ُ َُW8ِ+‫ْآَْ َذ‬zُ َْ
“Imam Malik narrates that once Abdallah bin A’yyash asked his servant to slaughter the
animal for him. When the servant was about to perform the slaughter Abdallah reminded
him to recite the name of Allah SWT. The servant replied,” I have already recited.”
Abdallah admonished him saying, “Recite the name of Allah.” The servant said, “I did.”
Abdallah bin A’yyash said, “I swear to God that I will never eat from this animal.” Abu
Omar observed that this Hadith explicitly denoted that the animal would turn into
unlawful for consumption if someone abandoned the Tasmiyah intentionally.”

Ibn Sireen is of the opinion that such a violation of Tasmiyah would not be tolerated even
in the case of forgetfulness because the implications of the verse are crystal clear and far
beyond any confusion or doubt.
78
‫ا‬L# . ‫ أو‬U‫ آ ن ذ‬8g  8. s‫ ا‬g‫ ك ا‬# 3W ^# C3…‫و¡ ه ا‬
“The verse is clear about the fact that absence of Tasmiyah renders an animal Haram to
eat whether it happens wittingly or unwittingly.”

/. /‫ }أ أ‬:8+‫' أ‬. ž32 /# '. L8. '+ b3 ‫ وروى‬.‫آ‬z3  8g  C8*>‫ إذا ك ا‬:'38g '+‫ ل ا‬E‫و‬
‫ذا  ء‬i4 ,L". ‫م‬23 ‫* أن‬. '+‫ ا‬,#4 ، !8. s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬3 ‫ أن‬u>‫ ة و‬B ]+‫_ ب ذ‬E L". *} E *. '+` ‫Šم‬o
]+
3 ‫ ا‬u4 8‫اه‬+‫' إ‬. ‫* د‬D '. CB ‫ وروى‬. {I Š4 !‫
آ‬3  ,
‫ل إن ه‬23 *. '+‫ ا‬:‫ ل‬E ‫ي‬I3 ‫إ> ن‬
79
{‫آ‬3 ` ‫ أن‬u‫^ إ‬D‫ }أ‬:‫ ل‬E u*>3 ‫ أن‬/>"84
“Ibn Sireen maintained that if a person forgot to recite the name of Allah SWT at the time
of slaughtering the animal, his slaughtered animal will be unlawful to intake. This is the
verdict reported from Ibn Omar. Yunus bin U’baid narrated that he came across Ibn
Omar’s servant at a butcher’s shop. The butcher had forgotten to recite the name of Allah
SWT at the time of slaughtering the animal. Ibn Omar ordered his servant to remain
standing at the shop and let everybody know that the butcher forgot to pronounce the
name of Allah SWT at the time of slaughter. Therefore, no one should buy the meat from
him. Shu’bah has narrated on the authority of Hammad from Ibrahim that he was asked

77
Ibid, Tabyeen, 3, 8
78
Al-Jassas
79
Al-Jassas, Ibid

33
about a person who forgot Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter. He replied,” I would want
him not to eat that.”

That is perhaps the reason that some later Shafa’i’ authorities have opposed their own
school in the issue of Tasmiyah and argued that Tasmiyah is a necessity to render an
animal lawful for consumption, as Ibn Kathir has reported about Abu al-Fattuh
Muhammad bin Ali al-Ta’iee. Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, one of the most known
Shafa’i’ scholars, has also preferred the majority’s view in an effort to avoid a doubtful
indulgence. He states that:
A(B‫ ' !*ل ا‬C: ; ‫و ذ? ا*رع  =وك ا وإن‬
‫' !ل‬0D ' ‫ة‬F‫ر *ا‬GH&‫ وا‬IJ‫ إ‬K ‫هة‬L .M‫ &ن ا‬N‫' ا‬O‫ر‬
2
, 1‫' ا‬ ِ
1)
, ‫ت‬)T‫آ‬)‫ذ‬َ‫و‬
, 2,4(,U
/‫? ا‬ )G,
T‫آ‬) V)T,
‫ر‬T‫أ‬
َ ‫َا‬ ‫إذ‬
ِ» :P‫  ل  ا‬%
%‫ وآ‬G YZ‫ ا‬3[ !‫\ر و‬ ‫ ذ?  ا‬%]0‫ و‬. «% T
/) N‫ا‬
80
‫ ا^[=اط‬%‫`ي د‬ *]. ?‫ذ‬
“As a demand of piety one should not eat from what was done without the Tasmiyah even
if there is no second opinion that Imam Shafa’i’ permitted such consumption. The
Qur’anic verse is explicit that it is obligatory and the (Prophetic) reports are continuous
and consistent about it. (The Prophet) replied to everyone who asked him about hunting
that, “Eat only if you have recited the Tasmiyah at the time of dispatching your trained
dog.” This command has been repeatedly reported from him (PBUH) and he himself has
always slaughtered by reciting the Tasmiyah. All these proofs validate the position that it
(Tasmiyah) is a precondition for lawfulness.”

Imam Ghazali also prefers that we should consider Imam Shafa’i’’s arguments as
applicable to the situation where a Muslim intentionally forgets to recite the Tasmiyah
and keep the intentional omission as the source of prohibition.
‫ا‬Z‫ وه‬،‫ه‬9‫]  ا  ا‬G.‫ و‬A $ bP: ‫ أن‬%‫وا‬
81
c‫ أو‬A0d‫ا^ل ا‬

It will be pertinent to notice here that Imam Shafa’i’ views the Tasmiyah at the time of
slaughtering as a highly recommended Sunnah but not a Fard, not an imperative the
absence of which will render the animal Haram to eat. He considers such an absence as
undesirable or Makruh. He encourages Muslims to slaughter their animals with the
Tasmiyah.

The third group of Jurists, like the first group, maintains that Tasmiyah is a must for
slaughtering animals. Nevertheless, they slightly differ with the first group in allowing
the slaughtered meat’s consumption if the Tasmiyah omission was unintentional. This is
the majority position including Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Ahmad and
many other known scholars. Imam al-Nawawi reports that:
،‫ن‬$‫آ دون ا‬Z‫ ا‬f g ‫ ا [ط‬: e$ *‫و!ل أ‬
.82‫ ا(ء‬h‫ه‬i ‫ه‬Z ‫ا‬Z‫وه‬

80
Ghazali, Ihya’, 2, 86
81
Fath al-Bari, Ibid
82
Al-Nawawi, Ibid

34
“Abu Hanifah said, “The Tasmiyah is the condition of permissibility. It will not apply to
forgetfulness. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.”
Abu al-Hasan al-Marghinani reports that the Hanafi position is:

,
3‫آ‬)
)F) ‫ن‬T‫إ‬
ِ‫و‬, % /‫آ‬
)lTF
/ )
 ٌ
)1
, ُo,ِZk)  ‫ا‬p1
, َ,ِ
14‫ ا‬Y -ِ‫ا‬kZ‫ك ا‬ )
)F
) ‫ن‬T‫إ‬
ِ‫و‬,
83
%ِ
َ ‫أآ‬
ُ q
ِ)0
“The intended omission of the Tasmiyah will render the animal dead, absolutely not
permissible to consume. Permission will be granted only in case of forgetful omission.”

Imam Malik is also of the same view:

84
.'or‫ !*ل ? وأ‬K oZ‫ ا‬V‫ أآ‬ p 0 Y‫ا‬Z‫ ا‬3‫آ‬F ‫ذا‬D
“Imam Malik and his disciples agree that the meat can be consumed in case of
unintended omission of Tasmiyah.”

Ibn Kathir explains the group’s position in the following paragraph.

oZ‫  ا‬G‫ك ا‬F ‫' إن‬0‫ أ‬:U‫ ا‬K sd‫ه ا‬ZU‫ا‬
‫ه‬Z  ‫*ر‬3BU‫ا ه* ا‬Z‫ ه‬،%t ; ‫ا‬ p 3‫آ‬F ‫ وإن‬،u. ;  p00
‫ق‬o ‫ وإ‬،'or‫ وأ‬e$ *‫]*ل أ‬. '‫ و‬،%G$  O‫م ? وأ‬w‫ا‬
،U‫ و (  ا‬،‫س‬G ‫ وا‬،A  Ay *‫ وه‬:'.*‫ راه‬
A‫  أ‬O‫ ا‬G ‫ و‬،? A‫ وأ‬،‫ي‬PG‫ ا‬z‫ وا‬،‫ و{وس‬،‫و |ء‬
،O‫ ا‬G A‫ ور(  أ‬،y  e(}‫ و‬،
“The third group of jurists maintains that the unintended omission is overlooked but the
intended omission renders the meat as unlawful. This is the famous report from Imam
Malik and Imam Ahmad and this is the position of Abu Hanifa and his disciples and
Ishaq bin Rahwayh. It is also reported from Caliph Ali, Ibn Abbas, Saeed bin al-
Mussayyib, A’ta, T’awus, Hasan al-Basri, Abi Malik, Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Layla,
Ja’far bin Muhammad and Rabi’ah bin Abi Abd al-Rahman.”

Ibn Kathir also reports that Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Marghinani has claimed that there
existed a consensus about this issue before Imam Sha’fa’ee.
%G! ‫ع‬iw‫« ا‬.‫ آ' »اا‬K ،A0$~U‫ ا‬z‫م أ* ا‬w‫ ا‬%]0‫و‬
C *. *‫ا !ل أ‬Z3 ،p ‫€ =وك ا ا‬t  A(B‫ا‬
85
‫ع‬iw‫ ا‬e‚U Ze$. ; ،'( ‫ „*از‬2‫ آ‬2 * :.BU‫وا‬
“Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Marghinani in his book al-Hidayah has reported that there
existed a consensus among all the Muslim jurists about unlawful nature of the meat upon
which the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced. That was the reason that Abu Yusuf
and other scholars maintained that if a ruler allowed selling of such a meat then his rule
would not be implemented because it is against the consensus of the (Ummah).”

Imam al-Zayla’ee86, Ibn al-Humam87 and many other Hanafi authorities have reported
that before Imam Shafa’i’, there never was a difference of opinion that the intentional

83
Al-Murghinani, Abu al-Hasan, al-Hidayah, See also al-A’inayah, 9, 490
84
Al-Qurtubi
85
Ibn Kathir
86
See Nusab al-Rayah, 6, 36
87
Ibn al-Humam, Kamal al-Din, Fath al-Qadeer, 9, 490

35
omission of Tasmiyah would render the meat unlawful. The Companions of the Prophet
and their successors were in consensus about this issue. The only difference was that
some of them permitted eating from the animals upon which the name of Allah SWT was
not recited because of forgetfulness and others categorically prohibited even that. There
never existed any argument before Imam Shafa’i’ that the intentional omission was not
problematic and would not turn the meat into unlawful food. Abu al-Hasan al-Marghinani
states:
‫ن‬
))‫ آ‬ T
,ِ ‫ف‬))H
ِ )  '/0
4Dِ
) ‫ع‬ِ,}1D
ِT
ِ † C
ِ) ‚
- A ‡(
ِِkB‫ ا‬ T
ِ ‫ل‬ /*
1])
T‫َا ا‬Z‫ه‬,‫و‬
,
Aِ 2 13-$
)1
, ‫ف‬/)‚ِT‫ ا‬, 0
4‫إ‬ِ‫و‬
, , ‫ا‬p 
ِ,  ِ
,ِ1
4‫ك ا‬ ِ‫و‬/T
,  ِ,
T- Aِ '/
)1G!
)
'
/04‫أ‬
َ 3$ N‫ ا‬AŠ‫ ر‬ )
, - ِ1‫ ا‬ ِ‫ه‬
,Zْ
,  Tِ
) . q  ِ)0  ِ,
ِ1
4‫ك ا‬ ِ‫و‬/
T
,
‫ف‬
ِ)‚ِِ , % ‹o
ِ.
, ' /0
4‫أ‬ َ 23$ N‫ ا‬AŠ‫س ر‬ ٍ
G ,  ِ
1‫ا‬,‫ و‬A Ž
ِ , ِ ‫ه‬
,Zْ
,  T
ِ‫و‬, , ‫م‬-
/o1.
,
: N‫ ا‬23O‫ ر‬ /.
َِ B,T‫ا‬,
‫ و‬C )
-*-. *-‫أ‬َ ‫ل‬))! ‫َا‬ Z3
,ِ‫و‬, , ‫ا‬p ِ, ِ
,ِ
14‫ك ا‬ِ‫و‬/
T
,
)u!
) * 1
)‫و‬, , ‫د‬ /, 3ِ}1ِ
‫' ا‬ ِِ f-,.
, )  ‫ا‬p 
ِ , 
ِ
,ِ1
4‫ك ا‬ )‫و‬/
T
, ‫ن‬ 4‫إ‬
. ‫ع‬
88
ِ,}
1D
ِTِ pe
ِ)‚- 'ِ0
ِ*
1)ِ Zُe/$
T.
, )  'ِ(ِ1
, ‫ز‬ِ‫ا‬,*,
ِ AِŠ)
]T‫ا‬
“This position of Shafa’i’ is against the consensus (of the Ummah). Certainly, there was
no disagreement before him that the intentional omission of Tasmiyah rendered the
animal unlawful. The disagreement was only about the forgetful omission. Ibn Omar
maintained that unintentional omission also rendered the meat unlawful while Ali and Ibn
Abbas argued that it was lawful in opposition to the intentional omission. That is why
Abu Yusuf and other scholars maintained that there is no place of Ijtihad regarding the
intentional omission of Tasmiyah. If a judge ruled that selling such a meat was lawful, his
ruling would not be implemented because it violated the consensus (of the Ummah).”

Abd al-Aziz al-Bukhari maintains that:

‫ب‬
ُ َWْv‫ٌ َوَأ‬Uِ َ# ‫َ َل‬E ِ ِ+‫ْ™ً َو‬3‫ً َأ‬8ِg َ ‫ك‬ َ ‫ ُم اْ*َُْو‬l َWُ3‫ َو‬Lِ ْ*َْ‫ن وَا‬ِ َ8ْ>l"‫' ا‬
َ ْ8َ+ ُ ِ_ْ;َ3 َ *!". s‫ ا‬ue‫ُ*َ َ ر‬. ' ُ ْ+‫ن ا‬ َ َ‫آ‬
/ََ. '
َ 8ِِ*ْnُ# ‫ْ آَ ُا‬Lَ2َ4 َ"َُ‫َ
ْه‬# َ ُ‫ آَ*َ ه‬Lِ ِ# َْ‫ وَا‬uِg "‫' ا‬ َ ْ8َ+ ‫ن‬ ِ َِ_ْ;َ3 !". s‫ ا‬ue‫س ر‬ ٍ َ. ' ُ ْ+‫ وَا‬u K َِ. ‫ن‬َ َ‫َاهِ ِ َوآ‬T‫ا‬
89
Cً nُD ِْ!ِ. َ*ْiِ ِ+ /َ;َ‫ً َوآ‬8ِg َ َ!َ‫ن إذَا َ َآ‬ َ ُ;َِْYَ3 َ*ِ‫ًا َوإ‬Lِ# َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬َ َ َ ‫ إذَا‬Cِ َ#ُْWْ‫ا‬
“Ibn U’mar used not to differentiate between intentional and unintentional omission. He
used to declare the unintentionally omitted (animal) as Haram also. That is also the
opinion of Malik and the Zahiri school. The Companions Ali and Ibn Abbas used to
differentiate between the intentional and unintentional omission as is maintained by our
school (Hanafi school). They all agreed that the intentional omission will render the
animal Haram to consume. They only differed about the unintentional omission. Their
consensus about the intended omission is sufficient of a proof (that it is Haram).”

Many scholars such a Kamal al-Din ibn al-Humam90, Ali bin Hasan al-Masu’di91,
Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Babarti92 and other mostly Hanafi authorities have also
claimed the consensus before Imam Shafa’i’ while many Shafa’i’ and non-Shafa’i’
scholars roundly reject that any such claim existed before Imam Shafa’i’. Al-Alusi
observes that the claim of Ijma’ or consensus is not substantiated.
88
See Ibn Kathir, Ibid
89
Ibid, Kashf, 1, 295
90
Ibn al-Humam, Kamal al-Din Muhammad bin Abdul Wahid bin Abdul Hamid, Fath al-Qadir Sharh al-
Bidayah, Dar al-Kutub al-I’lmiyyah, Kitab al-Zaba’ih
91
Al-Mas’udi, Ali bin al-Hussain, al-Bidayah, Dar al-Nashr, Kitab al-Zaba’ih
92
Al-Babarti, Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Mahmud bin Ahmad al-Rumi, al-‘Inayah fi Sharh al-
Hidayah, Dar al-Nashr, Kitab al-Zaba’ih

36
 2 h~ ‫ع‬iw‫*ت ا‬G‫و‬
93

Ibn Kathir also is surprised by the claim of consensus:

94
‫ا‬
p} .~ '! ‫ي‬Z‫ا ا‬Z‫وه‬
“What (al-Marghinani) has said is very strange.”

But there are some classical scholars who have faulted Imam Shafa’i’ because of his
stand on the issue of intentional omission of Tasmiyah. Imam Ghazali has reported the
following statement of al-Isfahani:
fG CH s A(B‫‘ ا‬o‫« أ‬ePU‫ »ا‬K ‫ آ‬A03er&‫و!*ل ا‬
›‫*ا‬/ 
/) (118) :c‫ ا&و‬/‫(م‬0&‫ *رة ا‬K 3$ ‫ت  ا]•ن ـ “ث‬.•
)‫أ‬
َ 2 1/
) , ‫و‬
, (119) :0d‫ وا‬، { ' ِ1) , ' ِ
4œ 2 -
1œ  )‫آ‬ِ‫ذ‬ُ  ِ
ِ ›‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬/
ْF) ) ‫و‬, :dd‫ وا‬، { ' ِ
1) , '
ِ4œ 2 -
1œ  )‫آ‬
ِ‫ذ‬
ُ  ِ ›‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬/
ْF)
(28) :c‫ ا&و‬،Ÿz‫ *رة ا‬K ‫' { و“ث‬ ِ
1 ) , ' ِ4œ 2 - 1œ  ِ‫آ‬ )Zْ.
- 2 1)
,  £
) , Vٍ‫ـ‬
¢
,*/(1 ‫م‬ٍ
.‫أ‬َ ¤
ِ ' ِ
4œ 2 ,
1œ ›‫وا‬/ ‫آ‬
/Z ْ.
,‫و‬, 213-
) f,e
ِ‫ـ‬¢$)
, ›‫وا‬/ 3
,Bْ
,ِ
ّ
)$T( ,}
, ٍ‫أ‬
ُ % ِ
ّ/
ِ‫و‬, (34) :0d‫ وا‬، { 2 ِۖ‫ـ‬
¢(,0
T‫ œڊ‬ ِ
,ِ3, ّۢ
ِ 2- 3!)‫ز‬
)‫ر‬)
2/) , 3‫ـ‬
¢$)
T(,}
, ‫ن‬ )
TG-
Tœ‫و‬
, (36) :dd‫' {وا‬ ِ4œ 2 , 1œ ›‫وا‬/ ‫آ‬/Z
ْ,ِ
ّ p ,$,
{ ‫ف‬ ۖ4•,
*r, ,31
) , 'ِ4œ 2 ,
1œ ›‫وا‬/ ‫آ‬
/‫ذ‬ْ©) ۖ†
1H) 3 ,ِ 21/
) 'ِ4œ ‫ر‬ ِِٕ ‫ـ‬,
‫ـ‬ ¢̈([
َ ّ 
ِ
'
ِ4œ 2 ,
1œ ›‫وا‬/ ‫آ‬/‫ذ‬
ْœ‫و‬, 21/
1)
,  )
T,1‫أ‬
َ « ِ ›‫*ا‬/ 
/) ‫ة‬ªU‫ ا‬K (4) .•‫و‬
95
{ '
ِۖ
1
) ,
“Al-Shafa’i’ committed a blunder by going against the seven verses of the Qur’an. Three
of them belong to Surah al-Ana’m. The first one is 118, “Eat only from what was recited
the name of Allah upon.” The second is verse 119, “Why do not you eat from (the
animals) upon which the name of Allah was pronounced.” The third is, “And do not eat
from what was not slaughtered in the name of Allah.” The rest of three verses are from
Surah al-Hajj. The first is, “(so the Pilgrims) during these known days can witness their
benefits and remember the name of Allah upon the cattle which He has given them as
sustenance.” The second is, “For all nations We have made this obligatory to recite the
name of Allah (upon the animals).” The third is, “the animal of slaughter which has been
made a religious rite for you is good for you. So recite the name of Allah upon it during
the slaughter.” The seventh is the verse of Surah al-Ma’idah which says, “Eat only what
your hunting dogs have preserved for you and you have recited the name of Allah upon
it.”

This is perhaps a very strong statement not appropriate for a scholar of Imam Shafa’i’’s
caliber. A person of his stature would never go against the verses of the Qur’an or violate
them intentionally. It was Imam Shafa’i’’s Ijtihad and most definitely he had his reasons.
One of the leading reasons for his stand was that a Muslim is on the Millah of al-Tawhid
and would never think of slaughtering an animal in the name of anybody except Allah
SWT. Allah SWT lives in the heart of every Muslim and the Tasmiyah is recited by a
Muslim as a daily routine. Therefore, it is not obligatory to require him recite the
Tasmiyah as a condition for lawfulness again at the time of slaughter. To Imam Shafa’i’,
all actions of a Muslim revolve around the name of Allah SWT. Though Imam Shafa’i’

93
Al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani, 8, 81
94
Ibn Kathir, Ibid
95
Al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani, Ibid

37
highly recommended that a Muslim should recite the Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter,
he was of the opinion that absence of the Tasmiyah would not render an animal unlawful.
However, he disliked slaughtering animals without Tasmiyah.

‫ا‬p
1 , , 3‫آ‬
))F
) *1)  T
ِ)‫و‬
, ,  ِ
,
ِ1
4‫ك ا‬ ِ
TF) /
+(,F
)  ِ
(ِِkB‫ ا‬ )$
T ِ  -
)T.
-‫و‬,
96
%
/‫آ‬)l
T.
-‫و‬, '/o
,
,‫ذ‬َ ,  %‹o
ِ.,
“Intentional omission of Tasmiyah is disliked (Makruh) by the Shafa’i’ scholars but they
permit eating from that animal as lawful.”

Al-Rowyani, another Shafa’i’ jurist, dislikes intentional omission.

97
3‫آ‬F (F .‫… و‬A0.‫  او‬%
The later jurists in the Shafa’i’ School also dislike intentional omission.
98
.HU‫ا آ !' (¬ ا‬ p 3‫آ‬F . %
Sulayman Al-Bajayrami, the famous Shafa’i’ jurist clearly dislikes such an omission.
99
G‫ أي ا‬3‫آ‬F (F .‫و‬

The Jamhur (majority of the scholars) have disagreed with Imam Shafa’i’ on this issue
and a good number of them have picked on him specifically for this so called mistake.
The other three schools of Islamic Fiqh along with the Ja’fari School have adopted the
position that the Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter is a must and any meat done otherwise
will not be permitted as lawful. Among this majority there is a split on the issue of
intentional and unintentional lapse of Tasmiyah. A great majority within this group
exclude the unintentional oversight of Tasmiyah from this rule of unlawfulness. Many
Shafa’i’ scholars have preferred this position also.

Al-Qurtubi reports that according to al-Nuhas, the position that forgetful omission will
not render the meat unlawful is the best of the three positions because a person who
forgets to recite the name of Allah SWT at the time of Zabh cannot be called a “Fasiq”, as
the verse of Surah al-Ana’m clearly states.
 O‫  أ‬.‫ق وروا‬o ‫؛ وه* !*ل إ‬p (i “ِ ‫ا أآ‬ p*3 3‫آ‬F ‫إن‬
‫? وا‬ † ‫ اب‬K '!‫آ“؛ و‬l. ; ‫ا‬ p 3‫آ‬F ‫ن‬D .%G$
 ‫ و‬À  z‫*ر̀ي وا‬d‫ِ' وا‬ or‫ وأ‬e$ A‫ وه* !*ل أ‬،2 ]‫ا‬
‫ا‬Z‫ ه‬:‫س و!ل‬o$‫ر ا‬Hœ‫ و‬،‫ و |ء‬hG- }  ( '!‫ و‬،) ¯G,r
1‫أ‬َ‫و‬
100
.
p 0 ‫ إذا آن‬ p]   
,.- ^ '0& ‫أ؛‬

Al-Jassas maintains that the Qur’an is clear about declaring the absence of Tasmiyah as
the source of unlawfulness but there is enough evidence in the Hadith that this would not
apply to the unintentional omission.

96
Musu’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, Kuwait, 7, “al-Tasmiyah”
97
Al-Sharbeeni, al-Khateeb Muhammad bin Ahmad, Mughni al-Muhtaj ila Ma’arifat Ma’ani Alfaz al-
Minhaj, Dar al-Fikr, 4, 333
98
Ibid
99
Al-Bajayrami, Sulayman bin Muhammad bin Umar, Tuhfat al-Habib fi Sharh al-Khatib, Dar al-
Ma’arifah, 1, 3463
100
Al-Qurtubi,

38
‫  آن ذ? أو‬0 ' N‫ ا‬2 ‫ك ا‬F  €o }* .M‫ه ا‬L‫و‬
‫ اد‬h~ ‫ن‬$‫  أن ا‬0$ V! ! ^‫ إ^ أن ا‬،‫ ا‬
.° C± '*] ‫ك ا ا‬F f '‫'؛   أح أآ‬
‫ب‬J‫ إ‬K .‫و‬U‫ر ا‬° 'e± f ‫ا‬Z‫ ه‬،‫ل‬³ 3z %( h~
101
oZ‫ وا‬P‫ا  ا‬
“The verse clearly leads to unlawful nature of the meat whether the Tasmiyah was
omitted intentionally or intentionally but there is also proof that this rule does not extend
to the forgetful person. On the other hand, those who allow its consumption even in case
of intended omission clearly go against the Qur’anic verse and its clear ruling. This is in
addition to them going against the authentic Prophetic traditions which require recitation
of Tasmiyah at the time of hunting as well as slaughtering.”

He further observes:
‫ أن‬%G!  ،‫آة‬Z‫ ا‬or f$´ ^  0 ‫ك ا‬F ‫ إن‬$! µ‫وإ‬
( ‫|ب‬H {' N‫ ا‬2 ‫آ ا‬Z. ; · ‫آ*ا‬F ^‫ }و‬:c(F '*!
{¸e '0‫ }وإ‬:‫¸ ا“وة‬0 K c(F '*! ' ‫ل‬.‫؛ و‬A $‫دون ا‬
C h~ '00 ‫ ل‬K A $‫؛ و&ن ا‬A $ er ?‫ ذ‬¹‫و‬
 h  G  ‫ رح‬A‫  |ء  أ‬A ‫ وروى ا&وزا‬،
 N‫}»وز ا‬2 ‫ ' و‬N‫ ا‬r N‫ !ل ر *ل ا‬:‫س !ل‬G  N‫ ا‬G
e . ; ‫ وإذا‬، {' ‫ن و ا ه*ا‬$‫أ½ ا¼| وا‬
‫ك‬F e. “ ' ‫*ر‬U‫آة  ا*}' ا‬Z‫ ا‬f!‫ ] أو‬
،102'$ ?‫*ات ذ‬e ‫ى‬H‫¾ إ¾ا' ذآة أ‬ª} h~‫ و‬،‫ا‬
“We say that unintentional omission of the Tasmiyah does not cause the slaughtering to
be unlawful because the verse “do not eat from a non-Tasmiyah animal” is addressed to
the intentional and not the unintended omission. The next portion of the verse proves this
point as Allah SWT calls such an act as “abominable.” Abomination is not the
characteristic of a forgetful person. The Tasmiyah will not be required of a person who
forgets to pronounce it. …Ibn Abbas narrates that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “Allah SWT
overlooks three things of my Ummah. The unintentional oversight, the forgetfulness and
what was imposed upon them (they were forced to do).”The forgetful oversight of
Tasmiyah will not ruin the slaughter because the obligation is not required in such a
situation. The person who forgot to recite the Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter cannot be
required to do the slaughtering again because the throat has already been cut.”

The majority of the jurists agree upon the fact that the intentional omission of Tasmiyah
renders the animal unlawful. This is the conclusion of our discussion as the authors of the
Encyclopedia of Fiqh state:
103
‫َ!َ ِء‬2ُ;ْ‫ ُ*ْ!ُ ِر ا‬Lَ ْ"ِ. ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫] ا‬
ُ ِ+‫ك ا
ا‬
َ َ َ ‫ إذَا‬Cُ َW8ِ+
 ‫ْآَ ُ ا‬zُ َ
“The majority of the jurists maintain that the animal upon which the Tasmiyah was
intentionally omitted is not permitted for consumption.”

It is also important to mention here that Jamhur al-Fuqaha or the overwhelming majority
of the Jurists do not differentiate between Muslims and People of the Book regarding this
101
Al-Jassas, Ibid
102
Ibid
103
Encyclopedia of Fiqh, 11, 205

39
ruling of Tasmiyah. Their famous statement is that there is no difference between a
Muslim and a Kitabi when it comes to the Tasmiyah oversight. What applies to a Muslim
will exactly apply to a Christian or Jew. Al-Marghinani, the Hanafi jurist says:
104
‫ء‬
ٌ‫ا‬,
* , ُ
,
ِ1
4‫ك ا‬/TF) Aِ A
+ ِ)ِT‫ا‬,‫ و‬2-
ِ1
-T‫ا‬,
‫و‬
“A Muslim and a Kitabi will be treated the same in the matter of intentional omission of
Tasmiyah.”

Ibn Qudamah, the Hanbali jurist, observes:

‫د‬
ِ,|
ِr1ِ
‫ ا‬Aِ  Aِ $(
1.
, ‫ء‬ ٌ‫ا‬, * , VT er
,‫و‬, 2
-ِ
1
-T‫ا‬,‫و‬ ,
 %
¿‫آ‬/ Aِ
 A
+ِ)
ِ
T‫ا‬,
‫و‬
Y
ِ
1Z
k‫ا‬, ‫و‬ 105

“The Muslim and Kitabi are treated equally in all matters connected with slaughtering
and hunting.”

Abu Ya’ala al-Farra’a says:

K {[ ‫ &ن آ آن‬A‫ ¸ ا‬K ‫ [ط‬A3 2U‫ ¸ ا‬K ‫ [ط‬À‫إ‬
‫يء‬U‫]*م وا‬z‫ ا‬f|! % A‫ ذآة ا‬K ‫* [ط‬3 2U‫ذآة ا‬
106
. ?‫* ذ‬Á‫ و‬Â}‫وا*د‬
“Certainly it is a condition for a Muslim and it must be a condition for a Kitabi because
whatever is required from a Muslim in the process of Tazkiyah is required of a Kitabi
also. It is required to cut the windpipe, jugular vein and the other veins.”

Nizam al-Din al-Balkhi states the same:

uِ4 َْ‫ ا‬uِ4 ‫ آَ

َا‬, ٌ‫ََاء‬g Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬
ِ َْ uِ4 u
? ِ+ َِْ‫ِ ? وَاْ*ُ>ِْ ُ وَا‬Wَ ً8ِg َ َ!َ‫ َو ِإنْ َ َآ‬, ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬ ِ ‫ َ ِر‬Cُ َW8ِ+‫ِ ? َذ‬Wَ ََ‫و‬
107
Cِ 8ِ+ َْ‫ اْ;ََ وَى ا‬uِ4‫ َو‬.
“It is not permitted to eat from an animal upon which the Tasmiyah was omitted
intentionally. It will be permitted if the omission was due to forgetfulness. The Muslim
and Kitabi are equally treated in this connection. This is maintained by the authors of al-
Kafi and the Fatawa al-A’tabiyah.”

The above detailed discussion regarding the debate about the Tasmiyah rules should
suffice to explain why Muslims of various backgrounds are still arguing about the Zabiha
and non-Zabiha meat. There is a consensus among the majority of jurists including the
Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali and Ja’fari schools of thought that pronouncing the Tasmiyah at
the time of slaughter is a precondition for lawful consumption. Any deliberate omission is
prohibited and rendered as Haram like a dead body. This strict approach plays out the
best in the Hanafi school of thought. There seems to be not a single voice of dissent
among the Hanafi jurists about this ruling throughout the long history of the school. That
is why many in the South Asian community, who mostly follows the Hanafi school of
Fiqh, many of them are extremely particular about Zabiha meat. There is a visible strain
of repugnance about consumption of non-Zabiha meat among many Hanafi Muslims.
Although this revulsion has been mitigated over time due to constant social interactions

104
Al-Marghinani, Ibid, Ibn al-Humam, Ibid
105
Ibn Qudamah, al-Mughni,
106
Al-Farra’a, al-Masa’il al-Fiqhiyyah, 3, 10
107
Al-Balkhi, Nizam al-Din, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah, Dar al-Fikr, 5, 288

40
between the Arabic and South Asian community members through the Masajid and other
Islamic activities, the issue still divides the community on a continuous basis. On the
other hand, the majority of the Arabic speaking community goes by the Shafa’i’ position
and does not seem to be having a problem with non-Zabiha market meat. This is partly
due to the historical influence of the Shafa’i’ school in most of the Middle East countries
and partly because many Jews and Christians living in these Muslim countries closely
follow the slaughtering rules or their slaughtering process is very much influenced by the
predominant Muslim culture. The South Asian countries have been predominantly
following the Hanafi school of thought and their encounter has been mostly with Hindus,
Buddhists and other religious groups that are not considered the People of the Book. This
is the reason that South Asian scholars even currently do not accept any Fatwa (religious
verdict) which allows consumption of meat not slaughtered with the Islamic Tazkiyah and
Tasmiyah rules. Contrary to this, very well respected and known contemporary jurists
such as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Dr. Mustafa al-Zarqa and many others have issued
Fatwas that permit consumption of market meat. Currently, many Hanafi Muslims of a
South Asian background also feel comfortable eating from the non-Zabiha market meat
because of convenience and variety but the debate still goes on whether it is Halal or
Haram to eat such meat.

These Fatawa permitting consumption of the market meat are based upon the following
main points:

1: That there is a clear text of the Qur’an that permits eating from the food of People of
the Book. This verse of Surah al-Maidah was the latest in the series of verses which were
revealed about the Tasmiyah, Tazkiyah or other rulings regarding food consumption.
Therefore, these scholars argue, this verse has abrogated all the previously revealed
verses and rulings. They further argue that the verse is generic and does not differentiate
between a religious or a liberal Christian or Jew. Also it does not require that the
Tasmiyah is demanded of People of the Book. There is an authentic report narrated from
Ibn Abbas that the word food in the Qur’anic verse refers to their slaughtered animals and
not to all of what they eat. This interpretation of Ibn Abbas is widely accepted by the
Qur’anic exegetes. As a result, they conclude, it is permitted to eat from the animals
slaughtered by People of the Book whether they pronounce the Tasmiyah at the time of
slaughter or not. The only restriction is that the animals must be from the category of the
cattle that are authorized by the Islamic Law for Muslim consumption.

Following is the famous verse that is quoted in this regard. The Qur’an states in Surah al-
Maidah verse 5:
2
1/
4 % Ãِ  ,‫ـ‬
¢)
ِTœ ›‫*ا‬/ F‫ُو‬
‫ أ‬ ).ِZ4œ ‫م‬-, ({
)‫و‬, V ۖ/‫ـ‬
¢G,
ِ
ّ|4œ 2-/) % 4
ِ‫أ‬ُ ‫م‬ ,*1
,Tœ

).ِZ4œ  )
ِ V /‫ـ‬
¢$)P,o1
-Tœ,‫ و‬Vِ‫ـ‬¢$
)ِl
T-
Tœ  )
ِ V /‫ـ‬¢$
)P,o
1-
Tœ,‫ۖ و‬2
13-
4 % Ãِ 2 1
/
-,({)‫و‬
,

)1~
) Â )$ِP
ِo1-  4‫ه‬-‫ر‬)*-}‫أ‬ُ  4‫ه‬
-*-
/1F
)‫َا‬‫َ• ء‬ ‫إذ‬ِ 2 1
/ِG
1!) ِ   ,‫ـ‬¢
)ِTœ ›‫*ا‬/ F‫ُو‬‫أ‬
ِ *,‫ه‬
-‫و‬, ‫'ۥ‬//
, , Ä )Gِ
,  T]
)) ِ‫ـ‬
¢´)‫ِ©ڎ‬ 
Te
/T., , ‫و‬
, ‫ن‬ٍۗ‫)ا‬H
T‫أ‬
َ ‫ى‬¤Zِ‚
ِ4
- ‫وڈ‬ , Â )o
ِeِ‫ـ‬
¢,
-

).ِِ‫ـ‬
¢‚)
Tœ  )
ِ ‫ة‬ِ
)Hِ‫œډ‬
“This day are (all) things Good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of
the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage)
are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of

41
the Book, revealed before your time, when ye give them their due dowers, and desire
chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work,
and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).”

Imam Shafa’i’ explains that Allah SWT has sanctioned the Zabiha of the People of the
Book.
'
/$T
, V /9e  ¬ ِ(
1, )$T ِ 23({ ‫ن‬ ))
‫ وآ‬،ِ‫ اب‬%ِ‫ه‬1‫أ‬
َ ‫م‬,({ ' /
4‫ ا‬% 4
,‫أ‬َ
108
23oª‫ل ذ‬ ِ“1‫إ‬ِ  ‫ل‬ ‹
/F) ‫ر‬
/َM‫ ا‬V ِ0
))
‫ وآ‬،1
23
-o
,ªِ,‫ذ‬
َ he‫ ا‬% ِ‫ه‬1‫أ‬
َ T
“Allah SWT has licensed the food of People of the Book and as interpreted by exegetes
the food here means their slaughtered animals. The reports (from the Prophet (PBUH))
also lead to sanctification of their Zabiha.”

Imam Shafa’i’ categorically requires that they must recite the name of Allah SWT upon
slaughtering animals and must not recite any others name. Their slaughtered animal will
not be Halal to consume if they fail to proclaim the name of Allah SWT.

Y
Å1‫ذ‬
َ 23)  ‫ن‬))‫ن آ‬T‫إ‬ِ‫ و‬،† ‫“ل‬Æ, A ,3
ِ) ),(F
) ' ِ
4 À*. 2 13
-o-ª
ِ,‫ذ‬َ V0‫ن آ‬ )D
'
/0)*³Z. ‫ أو‬،YU‫ ا‬21 ‫ ا‬%ْ dِ c, (F ' ِ
4‫ ا‬2 ِ
1‫) ا‬ 1~
) ' ‫ن‬ )*.  /H•
‫ن‬
4‫أ‬َ V /G‫ و^ أ‬،23oª‫َا  ذ‬ Z‫ه‬, %\Ç ; ‫ ـــ‬c, (F
) ِ '
4‫ن ا‬ )‫و‬/
‫ د‬2 ِ
1ِ

T!)‫ و‬،ِ ‫)ن‬e$
Tr
ِ 2 13
-o,ª
ِ, ‫ذ‬َ ‫ أن‬V )
1 ,‫ز‬
) C )
,‫آ‬T‫ و‬:% †ª
ِ)
! ‫ل‬ ))! ‫ن‬TD
ِ)‫ا؛‬Z‫ ه‬2 13
-oª, ‫ذ‬
َ
‫' دون‬/ u( ‫د‬ /‫ا‬. µ‫؛ وإ‬p ]| ‫ء‬ ُAkB‫ح ا‬ -G-.  T!
) :% )ِ!.‫ً؟‬])
)|T
- VTo,ِ‫أ‬
ُ
V
T)‫آ‬
ِ‫أ‬ُ c(F ' ِ
4‫ ا‬2 , 1‫ ا‬A ,
ِ0) ‫ِن‬ ‫ إ‬2 ,
ِ1U
/‫ن ا‬ \‫أ‬َ 2 Å ‫ زا‬2 ,
,‫ز‬) ‫َا‬ ‫ذ‬D
ِ
) ¬ ٍ(1
,
،ِ‫ك‬
TBÊ ' . ^ Æ * ,‫ه‬
-‫ و‬،'o‫ ذ‬% T‫آ‬lF ;  p)
e‚Tِ
1‫' ا‬ /‫آ‬
)
)F) ‫ن‬ T‫إ‬
ِ‫و‬, ،'oَ ‫ذ‬
109
‫'؛‬
/
/o,ِ‫ذ‬
َ ‫ك‬)
)TF
/ ‫ أن‬c1 ‫أو‬
َ ‫ّك‬ B‫'  ا‬ /
,).
, T
, ‫ن‬))‫آ‬
“Only those of their slaughtered animals will be Halal to eat which they do in the name
of Allah. Their slaughtered animals will be Haram if they slaughter them in any other
way like reciting the name of any one other than Allah SWT, for instance the name of
Jesus, or they slaughter it for the sake of anyone else other than Allah. I do not say that
they slaughter their animals like this (without the name of Allah or in the name of other
than Allah SWT). If it is said, “how come you say that their Zabiha is of two kinds (one is
Halal and the other Haram) while it is permitted generically (by the Qur’an)? It will be
said, “Something may be permitted generically but the implication will not be generic. It
will cover some aspect of that thing without the others.” If someone argued that a Muslim
who forgot to recite the name of Allah SWT at the time of slaughter then his Zabiha is
Halal and if he omitted the Tasmiyah carelessly then it will be Haram. If this will be the
case with a Muslim who does not make partners with Allah (shirk) while slaughtering
(that his Zabiha will be Haram) then the one who calls the name of partners his Zabiha
must be declared Haram.”

Why is Imam Shafa’i’ particular about the recitation of Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter
in the case of People of the Book while he is adamant that such a Tasmiyah is not
required of a Muslim to make the animal Halal for consumption? It is clear that he makes
a distinction between a Muslim and a Kitabi. A Muslim cannot be expected to pronounce
the name of any one else other than Allah SWT while there is a possibility that a Kitabi

108
Al-Shafa’i’, Kitab al-Umm, 2, 300
109
Kitab al-Umm, 2, 300

42
may recite the name of Jesus or U’zair while slaughtering the animal. Such an act of a
Kitabi will come under the clear ruling of the Qur’an “abominable is whatever is
slaughtered in the name of other than Allah.”

The famous exegete Imam al-Qurtubi, on the other hand, reports that the slaughtered
animals by the People of Book are Halal whether they pronounced the name of Allah
SWT or not as long as they did not pronounce anybody else’s name.
$ ‫]*ل‬. À0‫ا‬P$‫؛ وإن آن ا‬À0‫ا‬P$‫*د̀ي وا‬3‫ ا‬o‫ ذ‬Ë(.
‫*ن‬³Z. 2À& ?‫؛ وذ‬1 .¾
) - 2  :‫]*ل‬. ‫*دي‬3‫ وا‬Y) U‫ ا‬2  :YZ‫ا‬
2  2  ‫ وإن !ل‬À0‫ا‬P$‫ ا‬o‫  ذ‬% T‫آ‬/ :‫ و!ل |ء‬.\ Uِ‫  ا‬
.‫]**ن‬.  2ِ  !‫ و‬،23oª‫¾ ! أح ذ‬ \ ‫ و‬% \} N‫؛ &ن ا‬Yِ U
)‫ا‬
2 œ ¹ِ }
T , 2  ‫' وإن !ل‬o‫  ذ‬% T‫آ‬/ :‫ة‬, 1‚
)-  2 ]‫و!ل ا‬
 ‫وي‬/ ‫*ل؛ ور‬o‫ و‬Ì̀(B‫ وه* !*ل ا¾ه̀ي ور( وا‬2 $‫آ‬
110
VP̀‫دة  ا‬G- ‫ ارداء و‬A‫  أ‬:Â` or
“The (verse) means that the Zabiha of the Jew and the Christian is good for consumption
even if the Christian slaughtered it in the name of Jesus and the Jew did it in the name of
U’zair. The reason is that they slaughter based upon the religion (al-Millah). A’ta said,
“Eat from the Zabiha of a Christian even if he at the time of slaughter said “in the name
of Jesus.” Allah SWT knew what they pronounce and even then allowed consumption of
their Zabiha. Al-Qasim bin Mukhaymarah said, “Eat from the Zabiha of a Christian even
if he said at the time of slaughter “in the name of Serjus”, the name of their Church. This
is also the opinion of al-Zuhri, al-Sha’abi, Makhul and is also reported from the two
Companions (of the Prophet) namely Abu al-Darda’ and U’badah bin Sa’mit.”

Imam al-Showkani adds the name of Ibn Abbas to the list of above mentioned two names
of the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) who permitted eating from a Kitabi’s
slaughtered animal even if he pronounced the name Jesus or U’zair.
 ‫*د̀ي‬3‫ وإن ذآ ا‬،‫ اب “ل‬%‫ أه‬Yª‫ا أن ذ‬Z‫ه ه‬L‫و‬
'‫ وإ‬.YU‫ ا‬2 ‫' ا‬o‫  ذ‬À0‫ا‬P$‫ وذآ ا‬،.¾ 2 ‫' ا‬o‫ذ‬
،(‫س وا¾هي ور‬G ‫ وا‬،VP‫دة  ا‬G ‫ذه أ* ارداء و‬
111
‫*ل‬o‫ و‬Ì(B‫وا‬

Ibn Al-Arabi also reports that Abu Darda’ and U’badah bin Sa’mit permitted the Jews
and Christians Zabiha but he, surprisingly, adds the name of Imam Shafa’i’ to the list. Ibn
Hazam and many other scholars emphatically refute this claim, as will be seen in the
coming page, and Imam Shafa’i’’s own ruling quoted above proves that this attribution is
erroneous.

ٍ,ِ
$)
ِ Y -,Zْ.
-  
, ‫ء‬ِ‫)ا‬‫رد‬T
4‫* ا‬- ‫أ‬
َ % )Í
ِ- T])
) Â)‡
ِ)ِ
T‫ ا‬Y-ª
ِ,‫ذ‬َ  ‫أ‬ َ‫و‬
, .
‫ل‬
))!‫و‬
, V ِ
ِ P‫ ا‬ /1 ‫ة‬ /‫د‬
),G
- ‫ل‬ )) ! ? )ِZ
َ
ِ‫و‬, ،ِ 'ِ‫آ‬
Tَ
ِ  ),
َ
) ،-¹}ِT , , 3- 1‫ا‬
112
,
3
1)
, 'ِ
4‫ ا‬ /
1~) )‫آ‬ِ‫ذ‬
ُ ‫ن‬T‫إ‬ِ‫و‬, ،123
-o-ª
ِ,‫ذ‬َ %/‫آ‬
)l
TF/ :‫ء‬ٌ)
|
,‫و‬ , A+(
ِِk B‫ا‬

Abu al-Fath Nasr bin Ibraheem al-Nabulsi gives the reasons for such a broad permission:

110
Al-Qurtubi, Tafseer
111
Al-Showkani, Ibid
112
Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an,

43

-)
1~) ‫ن‬ )*+
,.- 213 -0
4‫أ‬َ 2,ِ ,  T!
)‫و‬, ،1 23
ِِ,({
) Aِ  ‫ن‬ )‫ذ‬
ِ‫أ‬َ  T!
) ' /0
),oG1
- ' )
4‫ن ا‬ 4‫أ‬َ
A
ŽGِ0
) % ِ.1Z
َِ ‫*ا‬/ ] )
,‫و‬, 'ِ4‫ب ا‬ ِ)ِ
ِ ‫*ا‬/ 
,F
)  
) 2 13-$
4ِ
)‫و‬, ،1 23
ِoِªِ,
‫ذ‬َ ) ,
‫وا‬/‫آ‬)‫ذ‬َ ‫ن‬T‫إ‬
ِ‫و‬, 213-o-ªِ,‫ذ‬
َ %/‫آ‬)lTF
/ :‫ء‬ ِ,)(
-T‫ ا‬ ُ
,,}, ‫ل‬)) !‫و‬
, .…  ً,
T- 213
-) V
T)(
ِ}-
^1*!
) , 3$
Tِ 2 1/)  /‫آ‬/Z
ْ0)  ٌ$
),
,  ٌ
)َ
1, A ,‫ه‬
ِ‫و‬, ،ِ Yِ,
T‫ ا‬ ِ
1~) 2 ,
1‫ ا‬, 31
) ,

Tِ ' ِ1
) , '/4‫ ا‬2 ,.
- 2 1) ,  ‫م‬ ,
4, ' /0
),oG1 - ' )4‫ن ا‬ 4‫أ‬
َ ? )
ِ‫ذ‬َ‫و‬
, :q (.ِ,
*
,‫ه‬- ' )
4‫ن ا‬ 4‫ إ‬:‫ن‬ )*/*/]., 2 1‫ه‬-‫و‬
, ‫ب‬ ِ)
ِT‫ ا‬% ِ‫ه‬1‫أ‬
َ ‫م‬ ِ,({) Aِ  ‫ن‬ )ِ
‫أذ‬َ‫و‬
, ،ِ Yªِ,
Zk‫ا‬
‫ا‬Î*
/ - 2 13
ِِ*
1!
)  T , '/4‫) ا‬ ,(F) . ٍ
َ“َ  sُ
َِ  ' /0
4‫إ‬ِ‫و‬, ،,2.,T
, /1‫ ا‬Y -ِ
,
T‫ا‬
‫وا‬/‫آ‬)‫ذ‬َ ‫ن‬T‫إ‬ِ‫و‬
, ،1 23 -
-,({) %)‫آ‬ِ‫أ‬ُ '/0),oG
1 - 'ِ4‫ ا‬2 ,
1‫وا ا‬/ ‫آ‬
/Zْ.
, 2 1) ‫ن‬TDِ
) .‫ا‬p hG
ِ‫آ‬)
113
'
ِِ Y,
, , T!)‫و‬, ،ِ')w
ِ‫ ا‬ /
1~) '/0
4‫أ‬َ‫و‬, ،‫وا‬/ )
‫ذآ‬َ ,  ?+‫ر‬) 2
,ِ
, T]
))
“Allah SWT permitted to eat their food knowingly that they recite the name of others
upon their Zabiha. This permission is based upon their strong belief in a revealed book of
Allah and their following of a Prophet. A group of scholars have maintained that their
Zabiha will be Halal even if they pronounced the name of Jesus upon it. This opinion is
good due to the following reasons. Allah SWT declared that any Zabiha upon which the
name of Allah SWT is not pronounced is Haram but (in the other verse) He allowed food
of the People of Book. This permission was granted in spite of the fact that they say that
Jesus is Allah and he is one of the three…. Therefore their food will be consumed even if
they did not recite the name of Allah. And if they recite then Allah knows better what
have they recited and that it is other than Him. He has permitted that (by Himself)”

Imam al-Showkani states that the difference of opinion comes only if they openly
pronounce the name of anyone else other than Allah SWT. There is no difference of
opinion that their Zabiha will be Halal if they did not pronounce the name of other than
Allah SWT openly.
h~ 2 ‫ ا‬23oª‫ اب ذآوا  ذ‬%‫ أن أه‬$ ‫ا ا¼“ف إذا‬Z3
‫ع‬iw‫ ا‬hd‫ي وا آ‬Ï|‫ ]  ا ا‬2(‫ م ا‬f ‫ وأ‬،N‫ا‬
N‫ ا‬r‫ة‬B‫  أآ'  ا‬$‫ ا‬K ‫ ورد‬U‫ و‬،.M‫ ا‬Z 3 
،YoP‫ ا‬K *‫ وه‬،.‫*د‬3‫ إ' ا‬Ð‫ ا½ أه‬PU‫ ا‬2 ‫ ' و‬
?Z 2 ‫ و‬،ÏH  oP‫ (¬ ا‬ZH‫ي أ‬Z‫ ا‬2oB‫اب ا‬Ñ‫? ا‬Z‫وآ‬
114

pu.‫ أ‬،YoP‫ ا‬K *‫ وه‬، Ì$‫ا‬
“This difference of opinion will apply only if the People of Book mentioned the name of
other than Allah SWT upon their Zabiha. In case that such a pronouncement is not known,
then their Zabiha will be Halal in accordance with this verse (Sura al-Maidah), as al-
Tabari and Ibn Kathir have reported the consensus about it. This is also supported by the
authentic report that the Prophet (PBUH) ate from the roasted goat that was gifted to him
by the Jewish lady. This is reported by both Bukhari and Muslim. It is also substantiated
by the fact that some of the Companions took a bag of lard (fat) from Khayber (the
Jewish area) and the Prophet was informed about that (but he did not stop them from
eating). This incident is also reported by Bukhari and Muslim.”

Basing their evidence upon the above sketched reports and interpretations, this small
group of scholars maintain that the Zabiha of the People of Book is Halal whether they
proclaim the name of Allah SWT or not as long as it is known that the slaughtered animal
was not done in the name of anyone else other than Allah SWT. Ibn Abd al-Birr al-

113
Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an,
114
Al-Showkani, Ibid

44
Qurtubi, like al-Showkani, also claims that there exist a consensus among all the jurists
about this.
'
)4‫ ا‬2 ‡,.- 21
) ‫ن‬ T‫إ‬
ِ‫و‬, ،/ %‫آ‬
)lTF
/ 34 0‫ أ‬A ‡
ِ)
ِ‫ ا‬ ِo,ِ‫ذ‬
َ Aِ ‫*ا‬- (,}1‫( أ‬T!)) ‫و‬ ,
ِ '4
115
‫ ا‬ )
1~) 31 )
, 2‡
,.
- 21) ‫َا‬ ‫إذ‬
ِ ،,3) ,
“There is an agreement among the jurists that the Zabiha of the Kitabi will be permitted
for consumption even if he did not pronounce the name of Allah upon it. This will be the
case as long as he did not pronounce the name of anyone other than Allah.”

Abd al-Hameed al-Sherwani, a Shafa’i’ jurist, maintains that Allah SWT allowed the
Zabiha of People of the Book, in spite of the fact that they usually do not recite the name
of Allah SWT upon it.
.Z‫ و{(م ا‬c(F '*] ‫ اب‬%‫ أه‬Yª‫ أح ذ‬c(F N‫ون ا‬
116

pG~ ‫*ن‬. ^ 2‫ وه‬2 % ‫*ا اب‬F‫أو‬

It is pertinent to mention here that most of the scholars from Muslim Spain and al-
Maghrib areas such as Imam al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Arabi, Ibn Rushd and others had lived
among the Jews and Christians and interacted with them quite frequently. Their opinions
in this matter are usually different from the rest of the Muslim jurists when it comes to
the Zabiha of the People of the Book. They lean towards permissibility even if the People
of the Book slaughtered animals without Tasmiyah or even if they slaughtered it in the
name of other than Allah SWT. Ibn Hazm, on the other hand, stands against such a trend
and rejects it thoroughly, as will be seen in the coming pages.

Discussion of the above Arguments:

It is clear from the above discussion that the scholars who allow consumption of the
Kitabi’s Zabiha are divided in to two categories. A few among them permit it even if the
name of other than Allah SWT is pronounced on it. The others prohibit such a usage if the
name of other than Allah SWT is recited upon it. Both groups agree that it is not required
of a Kitabi to proclaim the name of Allah SWT upon the Zabiha and that such a Zabiha
will be lawful even if the omission of Tasmiyah was deliberate. This opinion is attributed
to the three Companions of the Prophet (PBUH); namely Abu al-Darda’, Ubadah bin
Sa’mit and Ibn Abbas in addition to few Taba’een such al-Zuhri, al-Sha’abi and others. It
also seems that this position is then connected with the debate whether Tasmiyah at the
time of slaughter is necessary or not. It is also attributed to Imam Shafa’i’ indirectly
because of his stance on the debate of Tasmiyah. Finally, a consensus is claimed based
upon the generic nature and implications of the verse of Surah al-Maidah, that the food of
the People of Book is Halal whether they recite Tasmiyah on it or not. The reason is
given that this permission is based upon the fact that they slaughter in accordance with
their religious rules which in turn are according to the Millah of Ibraheem (PBUH).
Moreover, it is argued that the verse of Surah al-Ana’m that prohibits consumption of
animals not slaughtered in the name of Allah SWT is Makki and the verse allowing
consumption of the food of the people of Book is Madani. Actually Surah al-Maidah is
115
Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Abd al-Birr
116
Al-Sherwani, Abdul Hamid, Hawashi al-Sherwani a’la Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, Dar al-Kutub al-I’lmiyyah, 12,
188

45
among the last suras to be revealed in Madinah and the exegetes agree that none of the
verses of Surah al-Maidah is abrogated. Therefore, it is argued that the verse of Surah al-
Ana’m is abrogated by the verse of Surah al-Maidah. Finally, this is attributed to Ibn
Abbas that he was of the opinion that this verse has abrogated the verse of Surah al-
An’am.117

Abu Dawud has reported that Ibn Abbas said:


/ A+ِ
, ː4  ‫ي !ل‬ +‫ز‬
ِ‫و‬,
TUِ‫ ا‬Vٍَِ ِ ِ,o
- /  /,1‫أ‬َ $ ‫( ــ‬2818)
» :‫ !ل‬، ‫س‬ ٍG , ِ‫  ا‬ َ,ِ
T ِ  ‫ي‬ ‡*
ِo1$
4‫ ا‬ ).¾, .  ' ِِ
‫ أ‬ T 
ٍ1
,-
N‫ ا‬2 -
1‫ ا‬ ِ‫آ‬
)Zْ.
- 2 1
)  
ِ ‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬/ْF
) ^Æ‫و‬, } {'ِ1
) , N‫ ا‬2 - 1‫ ا‬ )‫آ‬
ِ‫ذ‬
ُ  
ِ ‫*ا‬/ 
)}
%
Ã
ِ ‫ب‬,)ِ
T‫*ا ا‬/ F‫ُو‬‫ أ‬).ِZ
4‫م ا‬-, ({
)‫? ]ل }و‬ )ِ‫ذ‬
¢  Tِ ) $d
ْ)
1‫ا‬,‫ و‬
)ِ$
/) {'
ِ1
) ,
118
2-
3) %
Ãِ 2
1
/,,({
)‫و‬
, 21
/)
“Ibn Abbas said,” Both verses of Surah al-Ana’m (Eat from what was slaughtered in the
name of Allah and (Do not eat what was not slaughtered in the name of Allah) were
abrogated. Allah SWT gave exception by the statement, “And the food of the People of
Book is permitted for you and your food is permitted for them.”

Imam al-Bayhaqi has also reported this narration in Sunan al-Kubra.119

$   o‫ ـ‬G0‫ي أ‬ +‫ر‬ِ, ‫ذ‬
َ‫و‬1
‹‫ ا‬A ,‫ أ* ـ‬0ÏH‫( ــ أ‬19549)
 A‫ ـ‬A‫ـ‬$ ‫ي‬ +‫ز‬ِ‫و‬
,T
,‫ اـ‬V  o‫  ـ‬O‫ أ‬$ ‫د‬ )‫أ* داو‬
N‫ ا‬AŠ‫س ر‬ ٍ
G , ِ‫  ا‬ َ,
ِT ِ  ‫ي‬ ‡*ِo
1‫ـ‬4$‫) ا‬ .¾.  '‫  أـ‬Â
2
1‫)ـ‬
 ‫ِـ‬ ‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬
/
ْF) ^ Æ‫و‬
, } {'ِ1‫)ـ‬ , N‫ ا‬2 - 1‫ ا‬ )‫آ‬
ِ‫ذ‬
ُ  ‫ِـ‬ ‫*ا‬//)} ‫ل‬
)! 3$

).ِ
Z
4‫م ا‬ -,({
)} ‫)  ذ? ]ل‬ $dْ
) 1‫ وا‬ )
,$)
) {' ِ
1‫)ـ‬
 , N‫ ا‬2 -
1‫ ا‬
ِ‫آ‬)Z
ْ.-
120
.{2
13-
) %4ِ 21/
-,({
)‫و‬, 21
/
) %Ãِ ‫ب‬,)

ِ‫*ا ا‬/F‫و‬
1‫أ‬ُ

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari narrates that Hasan al-Basari is also reported to have said that the
verse is abrogated attributing the same to Ibn Abbas.
 ،!‫  وا‬Âz‫  ا‬،YŠ‫  وا‬Ç $ :‫ !ل‬،O ‫ ' ا‬$
'
ِ\‫ ا‬2 - 1‫ ا‬)‫آ‬
ِ‫ذ‬ُ 4 · ‫*ا‬/ 
/) :‫ !ل‬:^! ‫̀ي‬PG‫ ا‬z‫   وا‬،.¾.
'
ِ\‫ ا‬2 -
1‫) ا‬ ‫آ‬Zْ.
- 2 1
)  ِ ‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬
/ْF) ^, ‫ و‬Â )$ِ
ِlT
- 'ِF
ِ.« 21/$
T‫آ‬/ ‫ن‬T‫' إ‬ِ
1) ,
‫*ا‬/F‫ُو‬‫ أ‬ ).ِZ
4‫م ا‬ -() {‫و‬, :‫ ]ل‬،?‫  ذ‬Ód ‫ وا‬$ ¸ †
1eِ
) ' /0
4‫إ‬,
‫' و‬ِ
1) ,
121
2-
ْ3) %
\ِ 21
/
-()
{‫و‬
, 2
1/) %\
ِ ‫ب‬
,ِ‫ا‬

Makh’ul narrates the same from Ibn Abbas:

›‫*ا‬/
‫آ‬/
ْF) ^‫ ا]•ن و‬K N‫¾ل ا‬0‫ أ‬:‫*ل !ل‬o   A‫ج ا أ‬H‫وأ‬
ÂU‫ ا‬2‫ ور‬%}‫ اب ¾ و‬3‚0 Õ { ' ِ
1
) , 'ِ
4œ 2-
1œ ِ‫آ‬
)Zْ.
- 21
) ِ
{ 2
1/
4 % Ã
ِ  ,‫ـ‬¢)
ِTœ ›‫*ا‬/ F‫ُو‬‫ أ‬).ِZ
4œ ‫م‬
-,
({
)‫و‬, Vۖ/‫ـ‬
¢G
,ِ
ّ|
4œ 2
-/
) %4ِ‫أ‬
ُ ‫م‬,*1
,
Tœ
122
‫ اب‬%‫ {(م أه‬%‫? وأ‬Z 3‚$ (5 .M‫ة ا‬ªU‫)ا‬

Ibn al-Arabi summarized the point in the following words:

117
See Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam for more details
118
Abu Dawud, Ta’am Ahl al-Kitab
119
Chapter on “The Food of Ahl al-Kitab”.
120
Ibid, 14, 215, see al-Ibn al-Joziyyah, Tahzib Sunan Abi Dawud
121
Al-Tabari, Tafseer, 8, 12
122
Al-Suyuti, al-Durr, 3, 348

46
2
13-
,, ({
) ‫ح‬ ,,‫أ‬
َ ) ,(F
) ' )4‫ ا‬ 4
ِ)‫و‬
, ،) 0)
$T
ِ ‫ة‬ p)‫ذآ‬
َ  ِZ
ِ‫ه‬, T/F) 21
) ‫ن‬ T‫إ‬
ِ‫و‬,
, ^‫ إ‬،) $$ِ.ِ‫ د‬Aِ ) $) ‫ل‬ †“, ' /04D
ِ) 213ِ$
ِ.ِ‫ د‬Aِ  ‫ن‬)‫و‬1
)., , % ‹‫آ‬/‫و‬
, ،p])|
T-
)$0
)*/ |(
1.- 2 13-0
4‫ إ‬:) 0‫ؤ‬
/,) - ‫ل‬ ))!  T]
))‫و‬
, .' ِِ  ' /0
),oG
1 - ' /4‫ ا‬2 13
-,Z
k‫آ‬)
%
‹oِF
) ^ C )
1)
) ،4 ‫ه‬
-l/{
T‫و‬, ) $) %‹oِ,
) Y ِ
T+P‫ ا‬Aِ  pT
ِ 2 1‫ه‬
-‫ء‬َ,0
ِ‫و‬, 21‫ه‬
-‫د‬
)^1‫أو‬َ
123

ِ,
To-
T‫ا‬, ‫ و‬%¿o
ِ
T‫ ا‬Aِ  ‫ء‬ ِ‫ط‬
T*,
T‫ن ا‬)‫و‬/‫ د‬%/‫آ‬
T&Æ‫ا‬,‫ و‬213
-o
-ª
ِ,‫ذ‬َ
“The way they (People of the Book) slaughter is not exactly the way we slaughter but
Allah SWT has permitted their food without restriction under any circumstances. All of
what they consider Halal in their religion will be Halal for us except whatever Allah SWT
has clearly prohibited. Our scholars have said,” They give us their children and women as
a possession during the process of peacemaking. It is permitted for us to have sexual
relationship with those women. How come their Zabiha will be unlawful for us while
eating is considerably less significant than the lawful or unlawful nature of the sexual
relations.”

The whole argument is shattered when analyzed and dissected closely.

First of all the majority of scholars do not accept this theory that the verse was abrogated.
Many scholars doubt that Ibn Abbas ever espoused that the above mentioned verse of
Surah al-An’am was abrogated by the verse of Sura al-Maidah. That is why both Bukhari
and Muslim have not reported this statement mistakenly attributed to Ibn Abbas. After a
detailed discussion of the above quoted reports, al-Tabari discards the idea that the verse
is abrogated in the following words:

‫ء أم ^؟ ]ل‬A[ 3  0 %‫ ه‬:.M‫ ا‬Z‫ ه‬K 2(‫ ا‬%‫ أه‬CH‫وا‬

‫ا !*ل‬Z‫ و  ه‬،' V$-  y A‫ء وه‬A[ 3$ $. ; :23u(
124
2(‫ ا‬%‫  أه‬
“There is difference of opinion among the people of knowledge whether any part of the
rulings of this verse was abrogated? Some of them maintained that nothing was abrogated
from this verse and that it is Muhkamah for what it was revealed for. This is the position
of the most known scholars.”
He further observes:
; V¾0‫  أ‬y .M‫ ا‬Z‫ أن ه‬،0$ ?‫ ذ‬K ‫*اب  ا]*ل‬P‫وا‬
125
‫ء‬A[ 3$ $.
“The truth of the matter is that this verse is inveterate and solid for the reason it was
revealed for and no portion of it was abrogated.”

Same is the position of Ibn Abbas himself. In the Tafseer attributed to Ibn Abbas, the
following is the explanation given to this verse of Surah al-An’am.
‫ا‬
p YªZ‫' {  ا‬ ِ
1)
, ' ِ4œ 2 - 1œ  ِ‫آ‬
)Z
ْ.- 2 1)  
ِ ›‫*ا‬/‫آ‬/
ْF
) ^ ‫و‬ ,
 '“o ‫ وا‬P( ‫ورة‬u‫ ا‬h× ' '‫ أآ‬Ë(. { ¸ ۗ†
1e
ِ) ‫'ۥ‬
/0
4‫إ‬ِ‫و‬
,}
126
e‫ آ‬%.¾$‫ر ا‬0‫إ‬

123
Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam, Ibid
124
Ibid
125
Tabari, Ibid
126
Ibn Abbas, Abdullah, Tafseer Ibn Abbas, Dar al-Nashr

47
Ibn Kathir also supports this understanding of Ibn Jarir:
$ ،.¾.  *‫س  ا‬G(‫ !أ  ا‬: A‫و!ل ا أ‬
:‫ !ل‬،‫*ل‬o  ،‫ر‬Z$U‫ ا ا‬Ë(. ،‫(ن‬$‫ ا‬A0ÏH‫ أ‬،([  y
Õ { ' ِ1
) , 'ِ
4œ 2 -
1œ  ِ‫آ‬
)Zْ.
- 21) ِ ›‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬
/ْF ) ^ ‫و‬
, ‫ ا]•ن‬K N‫¾ل ا‬0‫أ‬
‫م‬
-, ({)‫و‬
, Vۖ/‫ـ‬
¢G,
ِ
ّ|
4œ 2 -
/) % 4ِ‫أ‬
ُ ‫م‬ ,*
1,
Tœ ‫ ]ل‬ÂU‫ ا‬2‫ اب ور‬3‚0
%‫ {(م أه‬%‫ وأ‬،?Z 3‚$ { 2 1
/4 % Ãِ ,‫ـ‬
¢)
ِTœ ›‫*ا‬/ F‫ُو‬‫ أ‬ ).ِ Z
4œ
%‫ {(م أه‬% Â ،‫(رض‬F ^ '0‫*اب أ‬P‫ وا‬:.} ‫ !ل ا‬Õ .‫اب‬
127
،Yor '! ‫ي‬Z‫ا ا‬Z‫ وه‬،' N‫ ا‬2 ‫آ ا‬Z. ; €t Â‫ و‬،‫اب‬
“Makhul has maintained that Allah SWT revealed in the Qur’an, ‘and do not eat from
what was not slaughtered in the name of Allah’ and then abrogated it out of mercy. He
then said, ‘Today the pure things have been permitted for you as is the food of the people
of Book (permitted for you).’ This verse abrogated the previous one and permitted
consumption of the food of the People of Book. Ibn Jarir has said, ‘The truth is that there
is no conflict between the permissibility of the food of People of Book and the
prohibition of what was done without the name of Allah SWT.’ The statement of Ibn Jarir
is accurate.”

Ibn Kathir further states:

'‫¾م  إ‬. ^ '0D ،90 N‫' ا‬O‫*ل ر‬o '! ‫ي‬Z‫ا ا‬Z‫ ه‬K‫و‬
‫آون‬Z. 2À& ' N‫ ا‬2 ‫آ ا‬Z. ; %‫ إ أآ‬،‫ اب‬%‫{(م أه‬
YG. ; ‫ا‬Z‫ و‬،?Z ‫ون‬G( 2‫ وه‬،23$‫ و!ا‬23oª‫  ذ‬N‫ ا‬2 ‫ا‬
2 ‫آوا ا‬Z. ; 2À& ،23I[ ‫ و‬،‫ك‬B‫ ا‬%‫  أه‬2‫  اه‬Yª‫ذ‬
 2o‫'  ا‬0*‫آ‬.  ‫*ن‬e!*. ^‫ و‬% ،23oª‫  ذ‬N‫ا‬
128
Â‫ ا‬%‫“ف أه‬Ù U‫آ*ن ا‬. % ،‫ذآة‬
“What Makhul said is questionable. There is no correlation between permitting
consumption of the food of the People of Book and permitting consumption of something
slaughtered without the name of Allah SWT because the People of Book recite the name
of Allah SWT upon their Zabiha as well as animals of sacrifice. They recite the Tasmiyah
out of act of devotion. That is the reason that Allah SWT did not allow anyone else’s
Zabiha like the polytheists and others because they do not pronounce the name of Allah
SWT while slaughtering their animals. The polytheists, unlike the People of Book,
sometimes do not even slaughter the animals but at times eat from a dead and un-
slaughtered animal.”

That is the reason, Ibn Kathir, maintains that Allah SWT has allowed their Zabiha and
that is also the reasons that the Muslim scholarship is united on permitting consumption
of their Zabiha.
2À& ،Â ‫ “ل‬23oª‫ أن ذ‬،‫ ا(ء‬Â ' fÚ ‫ا أ‬Z‫وه‬
،N‫ ا‬2 ‫ إ^ ا‬23oª‫آون  ذ‬Z.^‫ و‬،N‫ ا‬h× YZ‫€ ا‬t ‫(]ون‬.
129
.‫]س‬F‫ و‬c(F ،2*!  ¾$ *‫  ه‬c(F ' ‫وإن ا ]وا‬
“There is a consensus among the Muslim jurists that the Zabiha of Christians and Jews is
Halal for Muslims because the (Jews and Christians) believe in the unlawfulness of
slaughtering in the name of other than Allah SWT and they do not recite over their

127
Ibn Kathir, 3, 290
128
Ibn Kathir, 3, 35
129
Ibn Kathir, 3, 35

48
animals anything except the name of Allah SWT even if they believe about Him what is
not appropriate for Him and He absolutely transcends that.”

This is the consensus which Imam al-Showkani has reported from Ibn Kathir. It is very
unfortunate that sometimes people report this Ijma’ or consensus without mentioning the
reason behind it. The reason Ibn Kathir gives is crystal clear and that is that People of the
Book believe in the Oneness of Allah SWT and, like Muslims, they do not sacrifice or
slaughter for anyone other than Allah SWT. They think that they believe in the revealed
books of Allah SWT and follow the rituals prescribed in those books. It is extremely
important to notice here that Ibn Kathir makes it abundantly clear that they recite the
name of Allah SWT upon their animals. 130N‫ ا‬2 ‫ إ^ ا‬23oª‫آون  ذ‬Z.^‫و‬

That is the difference between them and the rest of polytheists like Hindus, Buddhists and
other non-Millah people. They neither believe in Tawhid nor slaughter their animals in
the name of God Almighty. Therefore, a Muslim is not allowed to eat from their
slaughtered meat even if they recite the name of Allah SWT upon it. The entire Ummah is
in agreement that the meat of the polytheists cannot be consumed. It is historically proven
that the Jews follow special rites of sacrifice and slaughter. They are extremely careful in
implementing the rules of Zebahim while slaughtering the animals. To this day, the
majority of the Jewish community is observant of these laws, as will be seen in the
coming pages. The Christians have followed these rules over the centuries except in the
modern day society which is consumed by the principle of supply and demand rather than
religion and spirituality. Some Orthodox Christians are still particular about this issue.
What will be the difference between a polytheist’s slaughtered meat and a Christian or a
Jew’s meat if both of them do not follow the rules of Tasmiyah and Tazkiyah? The reason
why the Kitabi’s Zabiha was made lawful was because, the Kitabi was considered part of
the Millah of Tawhid and followed the Mansak of his forefathers while the polytheists did
not. Even among the Christians, a demarcation line was established between those who
were religious and those who were lax in their religious commitment. Both Caliphs Omar
and Ali did not allow Zabiha of some of the Arab Christians tribes such as Banu Taghlab
because their religious commitment was questionable. Imam Shafa’i’ narrates:
‫ر‬
ٍ$.ِ ‫ د‬ِ1 'ِ
4‫ ا‬ ِG
1 , T
, [ ٍo
,- /1 2-ِ‫)اه‬
1‫إ‬ِ] )0Ï)Hَ‫ أ‬:A(ّ B‫!ل ا‬
‫ب‬4|¼)‫ ا‬)1 , ‫ن‬ 4‫أ‬َ ‫؛‬oe‫ ا‬ ِ(1 , ِ
1‫و ا‬ ِ‫أ‬
َ ), - )
*1
, oe‫ ا‬1 ( , 
T ,
%
‹o
ِF) ,‫ و‬،ٍ ‫)ب‬
‫آ‬ِ %ِ‫ه‬1
َِ ‫ب‬,
)(,‫)ى ا‬ ‫ر‬,P0) ,» :‫ل‬ )) ! ‫' ـــ‬$ N‫ ا‬AŠ‫ـــ ر‬
2
13
-oِ
ª, ‫ذ‬
َ )$ )
“Imam Shafa’i’ has reported on the authority of Sa’ad al-Falha, that Omar bin al-Khattab
(May Allah be Pleased with him) said, “The Arab Christians are not the People of Book
and their slaughtered animals are not lawful for us.”

He also reports that Caliph Ali (May Allah be Pleased with him) did not allow the Arab
Christians’ slaughtered meat because of their laxity in the matters of religion.

T , ‫ة‬)),
G  T , ).hِ ِ1‫ ا‬ِ
, ‫ب‬,*+.‫أ‬َ T , A+eِ])d
k‫) ا‬ 0)G,H‫ أ‬:A(ّ B‫!ل ا‬
Aِ
$, ‫)ى‬‫ر‬, P0
) Y,ªِ,‫ذ‬
َ ‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬ْF
) ^Æ» :‫ل‬ )) ! '/04‫أ‬َ ‫' ــــ‬$ N‫ ا‬AŠ‫ ـــ ر‬A Ž
ِ ,

ِ1¼
)‫ب ا‬ِTB
ُِ ^
Ý‫إ‬ِ 213ِ$ِ.ِ‫ د‬ T
ِ ‫*ا‬/ 
,)., 21) 213-0
4Dِ
) ‫؛‬,
ِ×
TF)

130
Tabari, Ibid

49
“Imam Shafa’i’ has reported on the authority of U’baydah that Ali (May Allah be Pleased
with him) said, “Do not eat from the slaughtered animals of the Christians from the tribe
of Banu Taghlab, because they had stuck to nothing out of their religion except drinking
the wine.”
Caliph Omar bin Abd al-Aziz used to assign official guards to make sure that People of
the Book recite the name of Allah SWT at the time of slaughter. Ibn Hazm reports:
)
, ‫*ا‬/ ‫آ‬ِBْ.
- ‫ن‬T‫أ‬
َ 213
-(-$) 1.
, 
T
, 213
ِِ %)4
‫وآ‬, '/0
4‫أ‬َ ¾ِ.ِ¾(
, T‫ ا‬ِG
1
, ِ
1 )
, - T
,‫و‬,
131
. )
,
(F) ')
4‫*ا ا‬+ ,.
- ‫ن‬T‫أ‬َ 2 1‫ه‬
-
/-
ْ.
,‫و‬, , 213
ِo ِª
ِ,‫ذ‬َ
“Omar bin Abd al-Aziz assigned official to stop them from making partners upon the
animal slaughter and to demand them to recite the name of Allah SWT.”

It was not one or two Christian tribes whose slaughtered meat was declared unlawful by
the Muslim officials. There were quite a few tribes such as Banu Taghlab, Tannukh,
Bahzam, Jazam, Lakhm, A’milah and many others who were admonished for their laxity
in the matters of religion and morality. The majority of the jurists have maintained this
position.
‫ و  و‬2¼‫ام و‬Z}‫¾ام و‬I‫*خ و‬$F‫× و‬F ËG‫رى ا(ب آ‬P0‫و‬
132
‫*ر‬3Ñ‫ ا‬$ 23oª‫ ذ‬%‫آ‬lF ^ 233G[‫أ‬

It is significant to observe here that among the mainstream four schools of Islamic Fiqh it
was only Imam Shafa’i’ who had maintained that the recitation of Tasmiyah at the time
of slaughter was not required of a Muslim as a prerequisite for lawfulness but it was a
recommended Sunnah. In reference to a Kitabi his position is different. He is in line with
the other Imams when he requires Tasmiyah as a precondition for lawfulness. His
position is crystal clear when he says:
133
‫ل‬
†“
Æ
, A,3ِ
) )
, (F
) '
ِ4 À*. 2 13
-o
-ªِ,‫ذ‬َ V0‫ن آ‬ )D
“Their slaughtered animals will be lawful if they slaughter them in the name of Allah
SWT.”

If they do it without the name of Allah SWT or in the name of other than Allah SWT then
it will be unlawful. 13423oª‫َا  ذ‬ Z‫ه‬
, %
\Ç ;

It is evident that there is a consensus between all four Imams that a Kitabi’s slaughtered
meat will be lawful only if the Kitabi did it in the name of Allah SWT and not in the name
of anyone else. The concession given to a Muslim in case of intentional omission of
Tasmiyah is removed by Imam Shafa’i’ in the case of a Kitabi, due to the possibility of
Shirk. Therefore, a Kitabi’s meat will not be Halal if it was not done in the name of Allah
SWT.
135
ِ ِْْ‫َ!َ ِء َوَأهْ ِ ا‬2ُ;ْ‫ع ا‬
ِ َ*ْiِ ِ+ ُ َُW8ِ+‫ِ  َذ‬Wَ َْ Cِ َ3‫رَا‬Ll ‫ ا‬uِ;َ4 ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. َ!ْ8ََ. Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬
َ َ َ ْ‫ن‬iِ َ4 , u
l ِ+ َِْ‫ ا‬Cُ َW8ِ+‫ َذ‬#‫َوَأ‬

131
Ibn Hazm, al-Mahalla, 6, 87
132
Al-A’yni, Umdat al-Qari, 21, 18
133
Kitab al-Umm, 2, 300
134
Ibid
135
Al-Taqrir wa al-Tahbir, 3, 322

50
“The author of al-Dirayah reports that there is a consensus between all the jurists and
people of knowledge that a Kitabi’s slaughtered animal will not be Halal if he
intentionally omitted the Tasmiyah upon slaughtering.”

It seems that some scholars such as Ibn al-Arabi and others have not noticed this
difference in the stance of Imam Shafa’i’ and with a broad brush permitted consumption
of the Kitabi’s meat even if the Kitabi failed to proclaim the name of Allah SWT or
pronounced the name of Jesus or anyone else other than Allah SWT. Many other known
jurists before Imam Shafa’i’ have maintained the same position, that if a Kitabi had failed
to proclaim the name of Allah SWT, his slaughtered animal will be declared Haram.
s‫ ا‬g‫* ذآ ا‬# ‫' وأه ا ب‬8*>*‫ }] ا‬+‫ آا ذ‬:‫ ل‬E u*<Y‫ ا‬L3X3 '+ s‫ ا‬L. '. L8*D '+ L. ‫وأ)ج‬
136
8.
“Abdallah bin Yazid al-Khatmi said, “Eat only from those animals of the Muslims as
well the People of Book upon which the name of Allah SWT was proclaimed.”
137
.8. s‫ ا‬g‫
آ ا‬3  *# ‫ ` آا‬:‫ ل‬E uI‫' ا‬. ‫ س‬W"‫وأ)ج ا‬
“Al-Sha’abi said, “Do not eat from what was not done in the name of Allah SWT.”

E‫ رز‬R"8+ U2) ‫ رب آ‬3 :b8+‫ ل إ‬E» ‫ ل‬E g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫' ا‬. ‫ س‬. '+‫' ا‬. 3‫دو‬# '+‫وأ)ج ا‬
138
.«8. u*g‫
آ ا‬3  *84 :‫ ل‬E ‫؟‬uE‫ رز‬8;4
“Ibn Mardawayh reports on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (PBUH) said, “O
Lord! You specified sustenance for all of your creatures. What is going to be my
sustenance? Allah SWT responded, “upon which my name will not be mentioned.”

Š4 ‫؟‬u‫!دي وا"_ا‬8‫ ا‬CW8+‫' ذ‬. *. '+‫ل ا‬g Š‫ أن ر‬u"Z+ :‫ ل‬E *# '. m"_*‫ ا‬u4 ‫ ازاق‬L. ‫وأ)ج‬
{ ِ ْ8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬g‫ُ
ْآَ ِ ٱ‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫( وŠ وَڈ َْآُُا‬5 C3…‫ة ا‬L} *‫^ { )ا‬
ِ ٰ‫' أُوُاٱْَِـ‬
َ 3ِ
‫ َوŒََ ُم ٱ‬R
ُۖ ٰ‫َِـ‬8ّ <‫ِ  َُ ُ ٱ‬D‫ ُأ‬8.
‫!د‬8‫ ا‬s‫ ' ا‬:*. '+‫ ل ا‬24 8. ‫دد‬3 ‫ ا‬n4 :‫ ل‬E (173 C3…‫ة ا‬2‫ْ ِ ٱ ِۖ { )ا‬8َZِ ‫ِ ِۦ‬+  ِ‫َ\ ُأه‬#‫ َو‬8. Š‫و‬
139
.u*v Y3 ‫وا‬I‫! أ‬24‫ذا  أوا‬i4 ،u>3 + Wv‫ن ه
ا وأ‬i4 ‫اب‬.&‫وا"_ رى وآ;ة ا‬
“Abd al-Razzaq reported on the authority of Mua’mmar that a man inquired Ibn Omar
about the Zabiha of a Jew and a Christian. Ibn Omar recited the verse of Surah al-
Maidah, “And the food of Ahl al-Kitab is permitted for you.” Then he recited the verses,
“Do not eat upon which the name of Allah SWT was not mentioned.” Then he recited the
verse, “Do not eat from what was done in the name of other than Allah SWT.” The person
kept on repeating the question. Ibn Omar angered by the insistence of the person
remarked, “May Allah SWT curse the the Jews, Christians and the polytheists among the
Arabs. This guy like his friends keeps on asking the question. They like to pick up a fight
if I do not agree with them.”

It becomes abundantly clear that Ibn Omar drew clear cut lines between the Qur’anic
permission that Muslims can eat from the food of the People of the Book and what they
do without the name of Allah SWT or for anyone else other than Allah SWT.

136
-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din, Al-Durr al-Manthur, 3, 348
137
-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din, Al-Durr al-Manthur, 3, 348
138
-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din, Al-Durr al-Manthur, 3, 348
139
Al-Suyuti, Jalal al-Din, Al-Durr al-Manthur, 3, 348

51
The argument that the verse of permission is unrestricted and applies to all of their food
whether done in the name of Jesus or done with the name of Allah SWT is also a very
weak argument. The verse uses the word “Ta’am” which includes everything that is
eaten. We know that the Christians eat pork and nobody can say that pork is permitted
because it is part of Christian food. The reason is that Allah SWT has restricted the
permission of food with other verses of the Qur’an, such as the one which bans use of
pork, dead body, blood and other restricted categories. It is also restricted by the verses
which prohibits consumption of what was done in the name of other than Allah SWT. Ibn
Hazm summarizes the point.
َ# Cِ َD َ+‫ إ‬uِ4 Cً nُD b َ ْ8َ ‫ َوهَ
َا‬: - ‫ن‬ َ ُُ2َ3 َ# ُ ََْ3 َ ُ‫ َوه‬- ِْ!ِWِ} َ+‫ َ"َ َأآْ َ َذ‬/َ ََ ُ ‫ح ا‬
َ َ+‫ْ َأ‬LَE : ' َ 8ِِ} َ2ْ‫œ ا‬
ُ َْ+ ‫َ َل‬E‫َو‬
, ِ ِ+ ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬8َZِ  ِ‫َ ُأه‬# َ"ْ8ََ. ‫ ُم‬l َWُ*ْ‫ َوَ  ا‬X َ. ُ ‫ن هُ َ ا‬
َ ُُ2َ3 َ# َ َِ.‫َ!ُْ ; َو‬Wِ} َ+‫ح َ"َ َذ‬ َ َ+‫ن ا
ِي َأ‬  َِ , /َ ََ ُ ‫َ  َم ا‬D
140
ً8ِ*َ َ*ِ!ِ َ*ِْْg‫ِ'ْ ا‬# L ُ+ َ‫ َو‬, َ َ)” ٍ ْ#َِ /َ ََ ,ِ ِ ْ#‫ِ'ْ َأ‬# ‫ْ ٍء‬uَB ‫ك‬ ُ َْ ? ِWَ3 ََ4
“Some people have said that Allah SWT has allowed us their slaughtered animals and He
knew what they say (at the time of slaughtering). This cannot be used as a plea to permit
consumption of what Allah SWT has made Haram because the One Who allowed us their
Zabiha is the same One Who made it Haram for us to eat from what was done in the
name of other than Allah SWT. It is not permitted to abandon anything from His
commandment for the sake of another commandment but all of the Divine statutes must
be obeyed in their entirety.”

Likewise, the verse must be restricted by the verses which require recitation of the name
of Allah SWT on animals at the time of slaughter. These verses are numerous and are
revealed at different times and occasions. That variety and multiplicity substantiates the
fact that such a requirement is intrinsic to the Islamic concept of slaughtering. In addition
to the positive constructions, there are negative constructions such as, “Do not eat from
what was not done in the name of Allah SWT”. Actually the verse of Surah al-Maidah
begins with the statement that “Today we have permitted for you the pure things.” It is an
indication that only the pure things from the food of People of the Book will be allowed
to be consumed. According to the Qur’an, the animals slaughtered in the name of other
than Allah SWT or without pronouncing His name are “abominable” and not pure. The
whole argument that the verse of Surah al-Maidah is generic in implications and covers
all the animals done in the name of Allah SWT or without it, crumbles when looked from
the perspective that none of these verses of Tasmiyah were abrogated at all. This is the
opinion of the majority of exegetes, with the exception of a narration by I’krimak and
Hasan al-Basri from Ibn Abbas, which in turn, as we have already discussed, is not
authentic. Even if taken as a valid interpretation of Ibn Abbas, it cannot abrogate multiple
solid and firm verses of the Qur’an and their legal implications just because one
Companion, Ibn Abbas said it. One person’s opinion cannot be taken against a host of
opinions of the other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) or against a host of authentic
and consistent Ahadith.

Moreover attribution of the statement to three Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) that a
Kitabi’s slaughtered animal will be permissible even if he slaughtered it in the name of
Jesus or Surgis, is unfounded. Ibn Hazm and many other scholars have absolutely refuted
such an ascription to those Companions.
140
Ibn Hazm, al-Mahalla, Ibid

52
uِ+‫ َوَأ‬, ‫س‬
ٍ َ. '
ِ ْ+‫ وَا‬, u
« َِ.‫ َو‬, Cَ َ3‫َ ِر‬g '
ِ ْ+ ‫ض‬
ِ َ+ِْْ‫ وَا‬, ‫رْدَا ِء‬L ‫ ا‬uِ+‫ َوَأ‬, R
ِ ِ# _‫' ا‬
ِ ْ+ ‫َُ َد َة‬. ْ'َ. ٌ‫َ ت‬3‫ هَ
َا ِروَا‬uِ4 ْRَ3‫َو ُر ِو‬
141
'
َ 8ِِ+ ‫œ ا‬
ِ َْ+ ْ'َ. ٌ]8ِWَv ُ "ِَ‫ ; َو‬m ٍ 8َِe ْ'َ. ْ‫ َأو‬, ‫ب‬
ٍ ‫َ'ْ آَ
ا‬. ْ‫ َأو‬, َ 8ِ‫َ ه‬nَ# ْ'َ. َ!?ُ‫ آ‬, Cَ َ# َ#‫ُأ‬
“In this matter some reports have been narrated in the names of U’badah bin al-Sa’mit,
Abu al-Darda’, al-I’rbad bin Sariyah, Ali, Ibn Abbas and Abi Umamah. All of these
reports are narrated either by the persons whose identity is unknown or they are known
liars or very weak. It is true though that some of the Tabi’een (Successors) have held
such a view.”

On the other hand, many authentic reports indicate that the Companions like Ali, A’isha,
Ibn Omar and many among the Tabi’een categorically rejected the idea that a Kitabi’s
slaughtered animal will be lawful even if he recited the name of anyone other than Allah
SWT. Ibn Kathir reports this.
'+‫ وٱ‬CI} .‫ و‬u ّ . C+ W_‫' ا‬# ‫!
ا‬+ ‫ ل‬E‫Š آ؛ و‬4 ّ ‫ و‬Xّ . s‫ ا‬g‫ ٱ‬8o u*>3 u ّ + ‫ ا‬R*g ‫ إذا‬:C;} Œ R E‫و‬
‫ن‬
 ‫( َوِإ‬
ٌۗ ْ>ِ;َ ‫ْ ِ َوِإ ُۥ‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ٱ‬g‫ُ
ْآَ ِ ٱ‬3 َْ *ِ# ‫ َوَ َْآُُا‬:/  2+ '8ّ>*# '>W‫ل Œ وس وا‬E ‫*؛ وه‬.
(121 :‫ن { )ا& م‬ َ ُ‫ْ ِآ‬Iُ*َ ُْ‫ُآُ ْۖ َوِإنْ َأŒَُْ*ُهُْ ِإ‬Lِ ٰ‫َـ‬nُ8ِ ِْ!ِٕ‫َ\
ـ‬8ِْ‫ٰۤ َأو‬/َ‫ن ِإ‬
َ ُDُ8َ '
َ 8ِ<ٰ‫َـ‬8I‫ٱ‬
“A group said, “If you hear a Kitabi reciting the name of other than Allah SWT then do
not eat from it. This was the opinion of the Companions such as Ali, A’isha and Ibn
Umar and among the Successors this was maintained by Tawus and Hasan…”

Ibn Hazam reports that al-Zuhri, Ibraheem al-Nakha’ee, al-Harith al-U’kli and
Muhammad bin Sereen also maintained the same.

ِ ‫ْ ِ ا‬g‫ْ َ ا‬8َo Cِ َW8ِ+

 ‫ ا‬uِ4 R
َ ِْ*َg ‫ إذَا‬: ‫َ َل‬E ‫ي‬ l ِ ْ‫ه‬X? ‫َ'ْ ا‬. ٍ َ*َْ# ْ'َ. ‫ك‬ ِ ‫ْ'ُ اْ*َُ َر‬+ ِ ‫ ا‬Lُ َْ. َ Cَ َْ8َB uِ+‫' َأ‬
ِ ْ+‫( ا‬
ِ 3َِŒ ْ'ِ#‫َو‬
ِْ*َg ‫ إذَا‬: ‫َ َل‬E u l َِY"‫ َ ا‬8ِ‫َْاه‬+‫َ'ْ إ‬. ‫َ َد َة‬Wُ 'ِ ْ+ Lِ *َWُ# ْ'َ. ] ٍ ِ َv 'ِ ْ+ ul َِ. ْ'َ. :ٍ 8ِ‫( َوآ‬ ِ 3َِŒ ْ'ِ#‫ َو‬. ُْ‫ََ َْآ‬4 , /َ ََ
142
'
َ 3ِ8ِg ' ِ ْ+ Lِ *َWُ#‫ َو‬, u
l ِْُْ‫ث ا‬
ِ ‫َ ِر‬Wْ‫َْ ُل ا‬E َ ُ‫ َوه‬. ُْ‫ََ َْآ‬4 , ]ِ 8ِ>َ*ْ ِ+ ? ِ!ُ3
“Ibn Abi Shaybah reports on the authority of Abdullah bin al-Mubarak that al-Zuhri said,
“Do not eat from the animal upon which the name of other than Allah SWT was recited in
such a fashion that you heard it by yourself.” Waki’a reports that Ibraheem al-Nakh’ee
said, “Do not eat if the (Kitabi) did it in the name of Jesus and you heard it.” Same is the
position of al-Harith al-U’kli and Muhammad bin Sereen.”

Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) said:

ْ'ِ*َ4 ‫َْآُُ ُ ؟‬8َ4‫ َأ‬, َ 3ِXْ"ِYْ‫ن ا‬
َ ُWَ+ْ
َ3 ُْ!‫ََْ ُ َأ‬3 /َ ََ َ ُ‫ َوه‬, ُْ!َWِ} َ+‫ َذ‬/َ ََ ُ ‫َ  ا‬D‫ْ َأ‬LَE : ‫ هَ
َا‬m
َ َ َ) ْ'َ*ِ ‫َ ُل‬2ُ3‫ َو‬: uK َِ. ‫َ َل‬E
‫ََا ًء‬g َ 3ِXْ"ِYْ‫َ  َم ا‬D َ*َ‫ آ‬,ِ ِ ْ8َZِ ِ ِ+  ِ‫َ ُأه‬# ‫َ  َم‬D /َ ََ ُ َ‫ َوا‬: ُْ!َ ‫َ ُل‬2ُ8َ4 ‫ َ ؟‬3ِXْ"ِYْ‫َ  َم ا‬D /َ ََ َ ‫ن ا‬  َِ , َ : ِْ!َِْE
143
‫ق‬
َ َْ4 َ‫ َو‬, ‫ََا ًء‬g
“It should be argued with those who say that Allah SWT permitted use of their (People of
the Book) slaughtered animals and He knew what they eat. It should be argued that Allah
SWT knew that they eat pork. Would that be eaten? If they say, “no” because Allah SWT
prohibited consumption of pork, then, we say to them the same Allah SWT Who
prohibited pork is the One Who had prohibited any animal done in the name of other than
Allah. SWT. There is no difference between the two situations.”

141
Ibn Hazm, Ibid
142
Ibn Hazm, Ibid
143
Ibn Hazm, Ibid

53
It should be clear by now that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book will be
permitted only if they slaughter them in accordance with the rituals of the Millah of
Tawhid. These animals must be done in the name of Allah SWT and not in the name of
anyone other than Allah SWT. Following Islamic rules of slaughtering during the
slaughter process are as important as following the Islamic rules of marriage during
marriage with a Kitabiyyah. The same verse of Sura al-Maidah that permits consumption
of People of the Book’s meat, permits marriage with their women. Marriage with a Kitabi
woman cannot be done with the Christian or Jewish rules of marriage. Islamic rules of
marriage must be followed. Otherwise the marriage will not be lawful. Likewise their
Zabiha will be lawful only if the Islamic rules of Zabh are followed. Otherwise it will be
unlawful just like the marriage. Moreover, Tasmiyah is required from a Muslim, as the
Jamhur maintain. A Muslim cannot take the name of other than Allah SWT upon the
animals but always remembers Allah SWT at the time of acts of worship such as
slaughtering animals. Now if the Tasmiyah is a precondition of permissibility for a
Muslim, it must be a prerequisite for a Jew and a Christian as the authors of the Fiqhi
Encyclopedia observe:

َ َ!ِ+ (
ِ ْ<?"‫ ا‬/ََ. ٌ‫َ ِدر‬E َ ُ‫ َْآَ!َ َوه‬Lَ *ََ ْ'َ*َ4 . ‫ْ َر ِة‬Lُ2ْ‫ ا َ
آ? ِ وَا‬Lَ ْ"ِ. /َ ََ ِ ‫ ا‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>َ ِ‫َِْاط‬B‫ ا‬/َ‫ُ*ْ!ُ ُر إ‬nْ‫^ ا‬ َ َ‫َذه‬
*ِ# ‫ َوَ َْآُُا‬: } /  2 U َ ِ‫ َو َذ‬. ُ َُW8ِ+‫ْ َذ‬Rَِ‫س ُأآ‬ َ َ ْ)‫ن َأ‬
َ َ‫َ!َ َأوْ آ‬8ِ>َ ْ'َ#‫ َو‬- ²8ِ+ َِ‫ن َأوْ آ‬ َ َ‫ُ>ِْ*ً آ‬# - ُ َُW8ِ+‫ْآَ ُ َذ‬zُ
ْRَ‫َ ُ ِآ‬# ‫ْ_ُ ُد‬2َ*ْ‫ وَا‬, ً2ْ>ِ4 ,ُ *َg‫ َو‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬ ِ ‫َُْو‬# ِ ْ‫َ'ْ َأآ‬. ُ َ َWُْg /َ!َ { ٌ(ْ>ِ;َ ُ ‫ْ ِ َوِإ‬8ََ. ِ ‫ْ ُ ا‬g‫ُ
ْآَْ ا‬3 َْ
, ُ ُ*ْg‫ ِ ا‬8ِ;ْَ3 ُ ِْ>ُ*ْ‫ ا‬: ‫َ َل‬E g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u  ِ"‫ن ا‬ ‫س } َأ‬
ٍ َ. ' ِ ْ+‫َ'ْ ا‬. ‫ي‬َ ‫ ِ*َ ُر ِو‬, ‫ْ َر ِة‬Lُ2ْ‫ ا‬:َ َ# ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. ِ ْ8ََ. Cُ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ا‬
‫ن‬
 َِ ; u
? ِ+ َِْ‫ ا‬- ’ ِ 3ِLَWْ‫ ا‬uِ4 - ِ ِْ>ُ*ْ‫ ا‬/ََ. ‫س‬ ُ َ2ُ3‫َْآُْ { َو‬8ْ  ُk ِ ‫ْ َ ا‬g‫َ
ْآُْ ا‬8ْ‫ َو‬l َ>ُ8َْ4 ]
ُ َ+ْ
َ3 '
َ 8ِD u َ l*َ>ُ3 ْ‫ َأن‬u َ ِ>َ ْ‫ن‬iِ َ4
144
َ"8ِ4 ُ‫َْ َط‬Iُ3 َ# ِْ!8ِ4 ُ‫َْ َط‬Iُ8َ4 ‫ب‬
َ َِْ‫' أُوُا ا‬ َ 3ِ
‫ح َ"َ Œََ َم ا‬ َ َ+‫ َأ‬/َ ََ َ ‫ا‬
“The majority of jurists maintain that the Tasmiyah is a precondition for the one who is
capable and remembers the Tasmiyah. The one who is capable to pronounce Tasmiyah
and intentionally omits it, his slaughtered animal will not be consumed. This applies to
both Muslim and Kitabi. It is permitted to consume the animal slaughtered by a forgetful
or mute Muslim or Kitabi. This is due to the Divine commandment that says, “And do not
eat from the animals upon which the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced”. Allah
SWT forbade consumption of such an animal and declared it “Fisq” meaning
“abominable”. This applies to an intended omission… Analogously to a Muslim the
Kitabi is treated the same way. Allah SWT has permitted us to consume the food of
People of the Book. Consequently, whatever is required of us is required of them.”

Their slaughtered animals are not recommended to be consumed even if they follow the
Islamic rules except in the case of necessity as the known jurists have said:
145
‫ََ!ُْ إ ِ™ُو َر ِة‬W8ِ+‫َْآُ َ َذ‬3 َ‫َو‬
“A Muslim should not eat from their Zabiha except at times of necessity.”

Imam Malik disliked eating from the Zabiha of Jews and Christians if the Zabiha of a
Muslim was available. He did not allow them to have their meat market and sell in it their
slaughtered animals. He disliked giving them such permission.
146
‫ن‬W+
3 # !84 ‫ن‬83 ‫اق‬g‫ن ! أ‬3 ‫ أن‬,‫ وآ‬،>*‫ ا‬W+‫ ذ‬# L‫ إذا و‬,W+‫ ذ‬# ,3 s‫* ا‬D‫ ر‬U # ‫وآ ن‬

144
Encyclopedia, 21, 192
145
Fath al-Qadeer, 3, 229

54
Imam Shafa’i’ says:
]
ِ ْ+‫ِ'ْ َذ‬# u
 ِ‫^ إ‬
? َD‫' َأ‬
َ 8*ِْ>ُ*‫' ا‬
َ ِ# u
« َv‫ و‬،ٍœِ} َD ‫أ ٍة‬#‫ِ'ْ ا‬# ]
َ ْ+
 ‫ق ا‬
َ َŒ‫َ'ْ َأ‬# l ُ‫] آ‬+‫ وذ‬: ‫ ــــ‬s‫* ا‬D‫ ــــ ر‬u4 ّI‫ ل ا‬E
147
،ّuِ‫ي وا"_َْا‬
l ‫َ!ُ ِد‬8‫ا‬
“I will prefer the Zabiha of a Muslim over the Zabiha of a Christian or a Jew even it was
done by a Muslim lady in her periods (impurities) or a small Muslim child.” The Zabiha
of a small child or a woman in her impurities is not accepted by the majority otherwise.

The story of a Jewish lady Zaynab bint al-Harith gifting a roasted lamb to the Prophet
(PBUH) is also frequently quoted to prove that the Tasmiyah is not required of a Kitabi.
The incident at Khayber took place around 7th year of Hijri. We are told that a Jewish
lady with the name of Zaynab gifted the Prophet (PBUH) with a poisoned goat. The
Prophet along with Bishar bin al-Bara’a ate from that goat. Had it been unlawful to eat
from a Kitabi’s Zabiha the Prophet (PBUH) would have not accepted the gift and would
have not eaten from that. He did not ask the lady whether the animal was slaughtered in
the name of Allah SWT or not. The following is a report of this incident by Abu Dawud
and al-Darimi:
ِ ‫' أه‬# Cً 3‫!د‬3 ‫ن‬ ‫ثأ‬ُ Lّ َWُ3 ِ ‫ِا‬L. ' ُ + ُ +  ‫ن‬َ ‫ ل آ‬E ،، ‫ي‬ ّ ‫ُه‬X‫' ا‬. ، ‫ة‬X*D u+‫' أ‬+ ^ ُ 8B ‫ أ‬، :ٍ 4  ' ُ + ُ َW‫أ) ا‬
َ ‫آ‬4 ‫ع‬َ ‫"! ا
را‬# ّg‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫) َ
ا‬4 ّg‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u l "‫ ا‬/‫ْ! إ‬Lَ ‫ اه‬k Cً 8ِْ_َ# ‫ ًة‬B ْR*َg َ 8)
s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫ َ ا‬g‫َُْ« وأر‬3L3‫ا أ‬4‫ »ار‬:ّg‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫ ل ! ا‬E k ،# ِ ِ+ Wv‫ِ'ْ أ‬# ُ—ْ‫ وأآَ َ ا ّه‬، !"#
8. s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫ ل ا‬2َ4 ‫ك‬ َ َ َْ)‫َ'ْ أ‬#‫ ََْ و‬:ْR 24 «‫ َة‬I‫ ه
ا ا‬R ِ ْ**g‫ »أ‬: ! ‫ ل‬24 ، ‫ ه‬.L4 Cِ 3‫!د‬8‫ ا‬/‫ّ إ‬g‫ و‬8.
،ُ, ™3  ً 8 ‫ن‬
َ ‫ إنْ آ‬R ُ E :R E «U‫ ذ‬/‫ت إ‬ ِ ْ‫* ذا أ َرد‬4» :‫ ل‬E ََْ :R 24 ،«‫ي ا
راع‬L3 u4 ,ِ
‫ ه‬uِ"َْ )‫ »أ‬:ّg‫و‬
'3
‫ِ ِ ا‬+ Wv‫œ أ‬ ُ + u َ 4‫ و‬، !ِْE 3 ‫ّ و‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ِ ‫ ُل ا‬g‫َ"ْ! ر‬. ;4 ،"# "ْDَ َg‫ ً ا‬8 '3  ‫وإن‬
/# Lٍ "‫ ه‬+‫َ*َ ُ أ‬nَD ،‫ ة‬I‫' ا‬# َ ‫' أْ ِ ا
ي أآ‬# ِ ِِ‫ آ ه‬/. ّg‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫َ َ ا‬nD‫ وا‬،ِ‫ ة‬I‫' ا‬# ‫أآا‬
148
‫' ا&_ ِر‬# u K D ‫ وه‬،َCَ# َ*ُk u"+ '# ‫َ; َ ِة وه‬I‫ن وا‬ ِ ْ2 + ،َCَe 8+ u"+
“Jabir bin Abdallah used to report that a Jewish lady from Khayber gifted a poisoned goat
to the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet (PBUH) eats from the shoulder and a group of the
Companions eat along with him. Then the Prophet said to the Companions, “take off your
hands”. The Prophet called for the lady and inquired her whether she had poisoned the
goat? She said, “Yes, and who told you that?” The Prophet said, “The shoulder which is
in my hand.” The Prophet (PBUH) inquired her about why she had done so? She said, “I
did it with the intention to check whether you are a true Prophet or not? If you were the
true Prophet then the poison would not hurt you and if you were not then we would get
rid of you.” The Prophet (PBUH) forgave her and did not punish her. Some of the
Companions who ate from the goat died…”

Al-Munziri has doubted the authenticity of this report because al-Zuhri did not hear it
from Jabir bin Abdallah.
149
s‫ ا‬L. '+ +  '# :*>3  ‫هي‬X‫ ا‬,:<2"# ‫ وه
ا‬:‫ ل ا*"
ري‬E
“Al-Muziri said, “The Hadith is disconnected as al-Zuhri did not hear from Jabir bin
Abdallah.”

146
Al-Qurtubi, 6, 75
147
Al-Shafa’i’, Kitab al-Umm, 2, 312
148
Al-Darimi, 1, 33, Abu Dawud, 12, 229
149
Al-Biqa’ee, Burhan al-Din Abu al-Hasan Ibraheem, Tafseer Nazam al-Durar fi Tartib al-Ayat wa al-
Suwar

55
Imam al-Nawawi has also declared the Hadith as disconnected for the same reason.
150
+  '# :*>3  ‫هي‬X‫ &ن ا‬،:<2"# ’3LW‫وا‬
There are some other narrations that indicate that the Prophet (PBUH) killed her for the
death of Bishar bin al-Bara’a. Abu Dawud reports that she was killed.
s‫ ُل ا‬g‫ن ر‬ َ ‫ »آ‬:‫ َل‬E ، ‫ْ َ َة‬3َ ُ‫ ه‬u+َ‫' أ‬. Cَ َ*ََg u+‫' أ‬. ‫َ*ِْو‬. ِ'+ Lِ *Wُ# '. Lٍ ِ َ) '. Cَ 8ِ2َ+ ' ُ+^ ُ ْ‫" َوه‬kLD ‫( ــ‬4506)
'
ِ + Lٍ *Wُ# '. Lٍ ِ َ) '. َ َ)” :ٍ ِeَْ# u4 Cَ 8ِ2َ+ ' ُ+^ ُ ْ‫ وأ) َوه‬.«Cَ َELَ _‫َْآُ ُ ا‬3 `َ ‫ َو‬Cَ 3Lِ َ!‫ََ ُ ا‬23 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v
.Cَ َELَ _‫َْآُ ُ ا‬3 `َ ‫ َو‬Cَ 3Lِ َ!ْ‫َْآُ ُ ا‬3 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ُ ُل ا‬g‫ن َر‬ َ َ‫ »آ‬:‫ َل‬E ‫ْ َ َة‬3َ ُ‫َ ه‬+‫َ
ْآُْ أ‬3 َْ‫ َو‬Cَ َ*ََg u+‫' أ‬. ‫َ*ٍْو‬.
:‫ َل‬24 ،ُ‫َْم‬2ْ‫ِ"ْ!َ وأآَ َ ا‬# g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ُ ُل ا‬g‫َآَ َ َر‬4 ، َ!ْ*َg Cً 8ِْ_َ# ‫َ ًة‬B َ َْ8َYِ+ ٌC3‫َ!ُ ِد‬3 ُ َ ْ‫ت‬Lَ ْ‫َه‬4 :‫زَا َد‬
َ# :Cِ َ3‫َ!ُ ِد‬8ْ‫ ا‬/‫َ َ إ‬gْ‫َر‬4 ،?‫ََُو ٍر ا&ْ_َ ِري‬# ' ِ + ‫' اََْا ِء‬
ُ + ُ ْIِ+ ‫ت‬
َ َ*4 ،ٌCَ#ُ*ْ>َ# َ!‫ أ‬uِ"َْ َْ)‫!َ أ‬i4 ُ3ِLْ3‫ََا أ‬4ْ‫ار‬
َ!ِ+ َ َ#َ4 ،Uَ ْ"ِ# ‫س‬ َ "‫ ا‬R ُ ْD‫َِ ً أ َر‬# R َ ْ"ُ‫ وإنْ آ‬،ُRَْ"َv ‫ك ا ِ
ي‬ ِ  َ™َ3 َْ ²8َِ R
َ ْ"ُ‫ إنْ آ‬:ْRَ E ‫ِ؟‬Rَْ"َv ‫ ا
ِي‬/ََ. U ِ ََ*َD
‫َ!َ
َا‬4 َ َْ8َYِ+ R
ُ َْ‫ أآ‬uِ‫ ا‬Cِ َْ‫' ا&آ‬ َ ِ# Lُ ِ‫ أ‬R
ُ ْ‫َ ِز‬# :ِ 8ِ4 ‫ت‬
َ َ# ‫ َوَِ ِ ا
ِي‬u4 ‫ ل‬E  ُk ،ْRَُِ2َ4 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ُ ُل ا‬g‫َر‬
151
.«‫ي‬  َ َ!+‫ أ‬:ِ ْ<َE ‫ن‬
ُ ‫أوَا‬
The narration in Jami’a al-Masanid also reports that the lady was killed by the Prophet
(PBUH).

،ٌCَ#ُ*ْ>َ# َ!‫ َأ‬u"َْ َْ)‫ »َأ‬:‫َ َل‬E  ُk َ!ْ"ِ# َ َ‫ََآ‬4 Cً 8ِْ_َ# ‫َ ًة‬B u"ِ ْ‫ت‬Lَ ْ‫ َأه‬Cً 3‫! ِد‬3 ‫ن‬  ‫ »َأ‬:ْ". ُ ‫ ا‬uِe‫ َة ر‬3ُ‫ ه‬u+َ‫' أ‬.
َْ ²8َِ R
َ ْ"ُ‫ ِإنْ آ‬:َ َْ.‫ت َأنْ َأ‬
ُ ْ‫ َأ َرد‬:ْRَ َE ‫«؟‬R
ِ َْ"َv َ# /َٰ. U ِ ََ*َD َ# :‫َ َل‬2َ4 ، َ!ْ8َ‫َ َ ِإ‬gْ‫ََر‬4 ، َ!ْ"ِ# ‫ْ'ُ اَُْا ِء‬+ ُ ْIِ+ ،‫ت‬
َ َ*َ4
152
.«ْRَُِ2َ4 !+ َ َ#ََ4 ،Uَ ْ"ِ# ‫س‬َ "‫ ا‬R ُ ْD‫َِ ً َأ َر‬# R
َ ْ"ُ‫ َوِإنْ آ‬،َ‫َ™ُك‬3

Al-Tabarani, on the other hand, reports on the authority of Imam al-Zuhri that the Jewish
lady accepted Islam and the Prophet (PBUH) did not kill her. Imam Zuhri believes that
the reporters have gotten confused about her fate because she converted to Islam.

َ#» : ! ‫ ل‬24 َ 8Y+ Cً 8ِْ_َ# ‫ ًة‬B ّg‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ل ا‬g‫ ر‬/‫ت إ‬L‫ أه‬C3‫!د‬3 ‫أة‬#‫ أن ا‬: U # '+ ^‫' آ‬.‫و‬
:‫ ل *أة‬E k «‫ْ>ِُا‬#‫ »َأ‬:! ‫ ل‬E k ،+ Wv‫آ وأآ أ‬4 ،CEL_‫' ا‬# ‫ل‬2 ‫َ ِ
رَتْ أن‬D‫ و‬C3L‫ ه‬,
‫ ه‬:R E «‫ِ؟‬,
ِ َ‫ه‬
:R E «‫ »َِ؟‬:‫ ل‬E ، :R E ,L3 u4 ‫ِ!َ « وه‬E َ>ِ ُ ْTَ‫ »هَ
َا ا‬:‫ ل‬E ‫' أ)ك؟‬# :R 24 ‫ َة«؟‬I‫ ا‬,ِ
ِ َ‫ ه‬R
ِ ْ**َg َْ‫»ه‬
/.) ّg‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫ ا‬nD 4 ،‫™ك‬3  ً 8 R"‫ وإن آ‬،U"# ‫] ا" س‬3>3 ‫ ً أن‬+‫ آ ذ‬R"‫ إن آ‬:RE
153
!E ‫*ا أ‬.X4 ‫ ا*أة‬R*g‫ وأ‬:‫هي‬X‫ ل ا‬E .!™+ ‫* ت‬4 ‫*ا‬nD 4 + Wv‫ أ‬#‫ا هِ ِ( وأ‬

It is apparent that the incident has been reported by a variety of reporters with different
details. Abdallah bin Jabir’s report clearly indicates that the Prophet (PBUH) forgave the
lady and did not kill her. Abu Hurayrah’s report explains that she was killed. Ka’ab bin
Malik’s narration report that she was not killed but accepted Islam instead.

Imam al-Nawawi reports that Qadi A’yad had noticed these difficulties:
!‫> أ‬# ]8Wv u4 :E4 ‫ أم `؟‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫! ا‬E ‫ ر وا* ء ه‬k…‫ ا‬m)‫ وا‬:‫ ض‬8. ue 2‫ ل ا‬E
g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ‫ أ‬C*g u+‫ أ‬C3‫' روا‬# +  '.‫ و‬.+ ‫ة و‬3‫ ه‬u+‫' أ‬. 9#‫ و‬.` :‫ ل‬E ‫! ؟‬2 `‫ أ‬:‫ ا‬E
!"# ‫ور وآ ن أآ‬# '+ ‫' ااء‬+ I+ ‫ ء‬8‫ أو‬/‫! إ‬4‫ د‬g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ‫ س أ‬. '+‫ ا‬C3‫ روا‬u4‫ و‬. !E
154
. !E g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ل ا‬g‫’ أن ر‬3LW‫ أه ا‬:*‫ أ‬:‫"ن‬Wg '+‫ ل ا‬E‫ و‬. ‫ه‬24 !+ ‫* ت‬4

150
Al-Nawawi, al-Majmu’a, 20, 43
151
Abu Dawud, 12, 233
152
Jami’a al-Masanid, 17, 419
153
Majm’a al-Zawaid, 8, 523
154
Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim, 14, 147

56
“Qadi A’yad said, “The reports and scholars differ over the fact whether the Prophet
(PBUH) killed the lady or not. Sahih Muslim reports that they said, “Should not we kill
her?” The Prophet (PBUH) responded in negative. The same is reported on the authority
of Abu Hurayrah and Jabir. The other report from Jabir which is reported by Abi Salmah
says that the Prophet (PBUH) killed her. The report on the authority of Ibn Abbas says
that the Prophet handed her over to the relatives of Bishar bin al-Bara’a. Bishar died as a
result of eating from that goat. The relatives killed her for that. Ibn Sahnun maintained
that there is a consensus among the scholarship that the Prophet (PBUH) himself got her
killed.”

But Qadi A’yad has reconciled these discrepancies with the following explanation:
` ‫ ل‬24 !E‫  ا‬8E‫*! و‬g /. :Œ‫' ا‬8D `ً ‫! أو‬23  ‫ أ‬3‫ و‬E&‫ ت وا‬3‫ اوا‬,
‫' ه‬8+ :*n‫ و ا‬:ue 2‫ ل ا‬E
]_3‫ و‬،‫ ل‬W‫ ا‬u4 ‫! أي‬23  !E ]_84 ،ً v _E ‫ه‬24 } 8‫*! &و‬g U‫' ذ‬# ‫' ااء‬+ I+ ‫ ت‬# *4
155
..‫ أ‬s‫ وا‬U‫ ذ‬L+ ‫! أي‬E !E
“These differing reports can be reconciled in that the Prophet (PBUH) did not kill her in
the beginning and responded in negative to those who suggested killing her. She was
handed over to his relatives when Bishar bin al-Bara’a died. She was killed as a “Qisas”.
This way it will be true that he did not kill her and also that he did kill her later on.”

In spite of these contradictory versions and difficulties in the report we accept that the
incident did take place and the Prophet (PBUH) did eat from the poisoned goat given to
him by the Jewish lady. The report has been narrated by multiple sources and must have
historical validity. Al-Nawawi mentions that Bukhari brought this report in al-Maghazi.

g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u"‫ ا‬R3L‫ أه‬،8) RW4 ّ* :‫ ل‬E ‫ة‬3‫ ه‬u+‫' أ‬. L8g ’3LD ‫ زي‬Z*‫ ا‬u4 ‫ ري‬Y‫وأ)ج ا‬
:‫ ل‬E ، :‫ ا‬E ‫*ّ «؟‬g ‫ ة‬I‫ ا‬,
‫ ه‬u4 ُ  ‫ »ه‬:g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ل ا‬g‫ ل ر‬E ’3LW‫ ا‬u4‫ و‬...g !84 ‫ ة‬B
156
«‫™ك‬3  ً 8 R"‫ وإن آ‬،U"# ]3> ً +‫ آ ذ‬R"‫ »ان آ‬:‫ ا‬E ‫« ؟‬U‫ ذ‬/. ُَ*D #»

Following is the report from al-Bukhari:

Rَ3Lِ ‫ ُ أه‬8َ) RَWُِ4 *» :‫ ل‬E ". s ُ ‫ا‬uَ e‫ َة ر‬3‫ ه‬u+‫' أ‬. ٌL8g u"kLD :‫ ل‬E ’ ُ 8‫َ" ا‬kL D m
َ g3 'ُ+s ِ ‫ ا‬Lُ . "kّLD
،َ‫َ!د‬3 '# "‫َ' آ ن ه ه‬# u ‫ اْ*َا‬:g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫ ل ا‬24 ،Kُg !84 ‫ ُة‬B g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u l "
:g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫ ل ! ُ ا‬E . :‫ ا‬24 ‫"؟‬. u  Eِ‫ د‬v ‫! أ‬4 ،‫ء‬uB '. ُ} g u‫ إ‬:‫ ل‬24 ، ‫ُ*ا‬n4
‫"؟‬. R ُ g ‫ ٍء إن‬uB '. u  E‫ د‬v ‫! أ‬4 :‫ ل‬E .R َ EَLv :‫ ا‬E .‫Šن‬4 ‫آ‬+‫ أ‬+ ،+
‫ آ‬:‫ ل‬24 .ٌ‫Šن‬4 :‫ ا‬E ‫آ؟‬+‫َ' أ‬#
!84 ‫ ن‬:‫ ا‬E ‫َ' أه ُ ا" ر؟‬# :! ‫ ل‬24 . "8+‫ أ‬u4 ُ َ4َ. *‫َ" آ‬+
‫ آ‬R4َ. "ْ+
َ ‫ وإن آ‬،g 2‫ ا‬+‫ أ‬3  :‫ ا‬24
‫ ه أ‬:‫ ل‬E  k .‫ًا‬L+‫! أ‬84 ;ُْYَ ` s ِ ‫ وا‬، !84 ‫وا‬zَ>)‫ ا‬:g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u ? "‫ ل ا‬24 . !84 ُ;Y  k ،ً‫ا‬8>َ3
# :‫ ل‬E . :‫ ا‬E ‫ُ* ً؟‬g ‫ ِة‬I‫ ا‬,ِ
‫ ه‬u4 َ ‫ ه‬:‫ ل‬E .g 2‫ ا‬+‫ أ‬3  :‫ ا‬24 ‫"؟‬. ُg ‫ ٍء إن‬uB '. u  E‫ د‬v
157
.«‫َ™ك‬3  ً ّ8َ R
َ "‫ وإن آ‬،ُ]3َ>َ ً +ِ‫ آ ذ‬R
َ "‫ إن آ‬:‫ ا‬E ‫؟‬U‫ ذ‬/. َ*D

The above report is narrated by Imam Ahmad and al-Nisa’ee in addition to Bukhari.
Though this report is quite different from what Abu Dawud, al-Darimi, al-Bayhaqi and
others have reported about Zaynab bint al-Harith, the sister of Marhab. This report of al-
Bukhari somehow connects the act of poisoning to the Jewish community of Khayber

155
Al-Nawawi, Ibid
156
Al-Nawawi, al-Majmu’a, 20, 43
157
Al-Bukhari, 6, 408

57
instead of one lady. However, there is another report in which Bukhari alludes to a lady
without naming her or talking about her fate.

s
ُ ‫ا‬u
َ e‫ ر‬Uٍ ِ # 'ِ+bِ َ‫' أ‬. Lٍ 3َ‫' ز‬
ِ + ‫ ِم‬Iِ‫' ه‬. ُCُB "َkL D ‫ث‬
ِ ‫ ِر‬W‫' ا‬
ُ + Lُ ِ ) "َkL D ‫ب‬
ِ ‫ اَه‬Lِ . ' ُ+s ِ ‫ ا‬Lُ . "َkL D
.` :‫ ل‬E ‫ُُ! ؟‬2 `‫ أ‬:824 ، !+ ‫ء‬un4 !"# َ َ‫آ‬4 Cٍ َ#*>َ# ‫ ٍة‬I+ g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v u  "‫ ا‬R
ِ َ‫ أ‬Cً 3‫َ! ِد‬3 ‫ن‬
 ‫ »أ‬: ".
158
.«g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v s‫ ِل ا‬g‫ت ر‬ ِ ‫ َ!ا‬u4 !ُ4ِ .‫ أ‬R ُ ِ‫* ز‬4
“A Jewish lady gave a poisoned goat to the Prophet (PBUH) and he ate from it. She was
brought in front of the Prophet. It was said, “Should not we kill her?” He said, No.” …”

Ibn Hajar has noticed that Bukhari did not directly mention the incident attributed to
Zaynab bint al-Harith and her fate:
159
>‫ت ا‬L‫ أه‬u‫ ا*أة ا‬CE # u4 ‫' ا`)Šف‬# :E‫ و‬# /‫ رة إ‬B‫ إ‬W + ‫ ري‬Y‫م ا‬Xn3 ‫و‬

Badr al-Din al-A’yni reports that this report has been narrated by Ibn Qutaybah, al-
Nisa’ee, and Muslim also.
u} >"‫ وأ) ا‬.C8E '. ^<‫ ا‬u4‫ و‬،ً ™3‫ أ‬mg3 '+ s‫ ا‬L. '. ‫ زي‬Z*‫ ا‬u4 ً ™3‫ ري أ‬Y‫’ أ) ا‬3LW‫وا‬
g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ،s‫ل ا‬g‫ ر‬R‫ أ‬C3‫!د‬3 ‫أة‬#‫ أن ا‬:b‫' أ‬. ># )‫ وأ‬.+ C8E '. 8>;‫ ا‬u4 ً ™3‫أ‬
!UE& ‫ أردت‬:R 24 ،U‫' ذ‬. !>4 g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ،s‫ل ا‬g‫ ر‬/‫! إ‬+ ‫ء‬un4 ، !"# ‫آ‬4 C#*># ‫ ة‬I+
u4 !4.‫ أ‬R‫* ز‬4 :‫ ل‬E ،` :‫ ل‬E ‫! ؟‬2 `‫ أ‬:‫ ا‬E :‫ ل‬E .u. :‫ ل‬E ‫ أو‬،‫ ل‬E ،U‫ ذ‬/. U<>8 s‫ آ ن ا‬# :‫ ل‬24
160
g‫ و‬8. s‫ ا‬/v ،s‫ل ا‬g‫!ات ر‬
Imam Muslim narrates:

Cً 3‫َ!ُ ِد‬3 ‫ْ ََأ ًة‬#‫ن ا‬

 ‫ َأ‬، b ٍ َ‫َ'ْ َأ‬. Lٍ ْ3‫' َز‬
ِ ْ+ ‫َ ِم‬Iِ‫َ'ْ ه‬. Cُ َُْB َ"َkL َD . ‫ث‬
ِ ‫َ ِر‬Wْ‫' ا‬ُ ْ+ Lُ ِ َ) َ"َkL َD . u
? ِk‫َ ِر‬Wْ‫^ ا‬
ٍ 8َِD 'ُ ْ+ /َ8ْWَ3 "kّLD
:‫َ َل‬E .Uَ َُْE&َ ‫ت‬ ُ ْ‫ َأ َرد‬:ْRَ َ2َ4 ‫َ؟‬Uِٰ‫َ'ْ ذ‬. َ!َََ>َ4 . ِ ّ‫ُ ِل ا‬g‫ٰ َر‬/َ‫ِ!َ ِإ‬+ ‫ َء‬uِnَ4 . َ!ْ"ِ# َ َ‫ََآ‬4 .Cٍ َ#ُ*ْ>َ# ‫َ ٍة‬Iِ+ ِ ّ‫ُ َل ا‬g‫ْ َر‬Rَ‫َأ‬
‫ت‬
ِ ‫ َ!ََا‬uِ4 َ!ُ4ِ ْ.‫ َأ‬R ُ ْ‫َ*َ ِز‬4 :‫َ َل‬E «`َ » ‫َ َل‬E ‫ُْ! ؟‬2َ `َ ‫ َأ‬:‫َ ُا‬E ‫َ َل‬E «u  ََ.» ‫َ َل‬E ْ‫َ َل َأو‬E «‫ك‬ ِ ‫ٰ ذَا‬/ََ. Uِ َ<lَ>ُ8ِ ُ ّ‫ن ا‬ َ َ‫َ آ‬#»
161
. ِ ّ‫ُ ِل ا‬g‫َر‬

This report from Muslim is similar to Bukhari’s report except that it adds that the lady
said to the Prophet (PBUH), “I intended to kill you.” The Prophet replied, “Allah SWT
was not going to let you do that.” The report also mentions that the lady was not killed.

In spite of the fact that this report has been narrated by different Hadith sources from
various chains and individuals with divergent details, the fact that it has been narrated
through many reliable sources gives validity to the fact that some incident of this nature
took place in Khayber where the Prophet (PBUH) was offered a poisoned goat and he ate
from it.

Nevertheless, this incident does not prove that the Prophet (PBUH) ate from meat on
which the name of Allah SWT was not pronounced. As we have already seen that Ibn
Kathir and many others have reported that the People of Book, especially the Jews used
to slaughter their animals in the name of Allah SWT. That is why the Prophet (PBUH) did
not reject the gift or inquire about the Tasmiyah since he knew that the Jews were very

158
Al-Bukhari, 5, 550
159
Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, 6, 408
160
Al-A’yni, U’mdat al-Qari, 15, 91
161
Sahih Muslim, 14, 147

58
particular in slaughtering animals in the name of God. Many of them are very careful
about the meat even today, as we will see in detail. Therefore the Prophet (PBUH) did not
object to the Companions who ate with him or to those who took the bag of lard from the
Jews of Khayber. The lard was from the animals slaughtered in the name of Allah SWT.

This incident of Khayber cannot be quoted to prove that the Prophet (PBUH) did not care
about Tasmiyah or Tazkiyah because he ate from food of the Jews without any concern.
This incident took place in the 7th year of Hijri and Surah al-Maidah was not revealed by
then. The permission for the food of the People of Book came by the 10th year of Hijri
and cannot be the base of Prophet’s action in Khayber. Had the verse of Surah al-Maidah
abrogated the verses of Tasmiyah in the 10th year of the Prophet’s Hijrah to Madinah then
it would have been required for the Prophet (PBUH) to check the slaughtering process
and recitation of Tasmiyah from the Jewish lady in the 7th year of Hijrah. The verses of
Tasmiyah, according to the scholars who believe that the verse of Surah al-Maidah
abrogated them, were not abrogated by the 7th of Hijrah but in the 10th of Hijrah.
Therefore their rulings could have not been abrogated by 7th of Hijrah also. The action of
Prophet (PBUH) proves that he was aware that the Jews slaughtered their meat in the
name of Allah SWT and that was the reason that he ate from their food without much
hesitation.

Historically speaking, the Jewish community has been known for its keenness to observe
the Jewish dietary laws. Jewish jurisprudence sources such a Mishna and Talmud are
quite elaborate about the process of animal slaughtering. These laws were promulgated
long before the advent of Islam and were well established in the Jewish community all
over the world. The Rabbis from the times of antiquity have followed a uniform method
of slaughtering or Zebah, the Talmudic term for slaughtering. The whole process is called
Shehitah. It was believed that the laws of Shehitah were orally given to Moses on Sinai.
(Duet. 12, 21)

The Shehitah or slaughtering of animals is done by individuals who are well versed in the
Law and quite apt at completing the process skillfully. The Talmud requires the proper
intention to slaughter the animal in accordance with the laws of Shehitah, “It is essential
to have the intention to cut, it is also essential to have the intention to slaughter
[according to ritual].162”

The qualified person is required to recite the following supplication at the time of
slaughter. ‘Blessed [art Thou] . . . who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and
hast commanded us concerning shechitah.”163

The process necessitates that only the clean persons perform it, “shechitah requires clean
persons.” 164

162
Talmud, Mas. Chullin, 31b, 19
163
Talmud, Mas. Pesachim, 7b, 6
164
Ibid, Mas. Zevachim, 32a

59
The list of unclean persons includes a deaf-mute, a minor, an intoxicated one, an idiot, an
old man whose hands tremble, a gentile even though not an idolater, an apostate Jew or a
Jew who intentionally transgresses the laws of Judaism and a woman. “This is the
interpretation of the Mishnah. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER: [that is to say], all who are
qualified may slaughter, even though it is not known whether they are experienced or not:
provided that we are satisfied that they are able to recite the rules of Shechitah.3 But if
we do not know whether they are able to recite the rules of Shechitah, they may not
slaughter; if, however, they did slaughter, they are to be examined now. If they are able to
recite the rules of Shechitah, one may eat of their slaughtering; otherwise one may not eat
of their slaughtering. EXCEPT A DEAF-MUTE. AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR: whose
slaughtering, even after the act,4 is invalid...”165

It is required to recite the laws of slaughtering. But a non-Jew gentile’s slaughtered

animal will be unlawful even if the gentile recited the laws and did the animal in
accordance with those laws. “Rabbi. Johanan said, “The term shechitah applies to the
entire process of slaughtering from beginning to end.” Raba remarked, “All agree that
where a gentile cut the first organ of the throat and an Israelite the second, the
slaughtering is invalid, for the animal has already been rendered trefah by the hand of the
gentile.”166 The process is so sanctified that even a slight touch by the gentile will
invalidate it. This rule is implemented strictly even to the present day. There is a rigid
examination given by a competent Jewish authority which must be passed to receive a
certificate for slaughtering. A rabbi who is issued the certificate for slaughtering is
obligated to review the laws of Shehitah at least every thirty days so that he can slaughter
the animal exactly in accordance with these laws.

Detailed descriptions are given about the knife with which an animal is allowed to be
slaughtered. The length of the knife must be twice the width of the throat of the animal. It
must be sharp, smooth without any notch and must be examined by the competent
authority before and after the slaughter. The following supplication must be recited
before slaughtering. "Blessed art Thou . . . who sanctified us with His commandments
and commanded us concerning slaughtering." No irrelevant conversation is permitted
afterwards until the slaughtering is complete.

The place of slaughtering is specified. “Ritual slaughtering — shechitah — consists of

cutting across the two organs of the throat, viz, the windpipe and the gullet.”167

The whole process is summarized in the following five laws:

1: "Shehiyah" (delay).No delay is permitted. No interruption is allowed. The knife must

move back and forth in continuous motion. A delay of even a moment will render the
animal unlawful for consumption.168

165
Talmud, Mas. Chullin, 3b
166
Ibid, Mas. Chullin, 29b
167
Ibid, 63a
168
See Yoreh De'ah, 23

60
2:"Derasah" (pressing). The slaughtering must be gentle and the knife must be moved
back and forth without any pressure otherwise it will render the animal unlawful.169

3:“Saladah” or digging. The knife must be placed over the throat. If it was somehow
placed between the windpipe and the gullet or under the skin in such a fashion that any
part of the knife became invisible, it will make the animal unfit for eating.

(4) "Hagramah" (slipping). The limits within which the knife may be inserted are from
the large ring in the windpipe to the top of the upper lobe of the lungs when inflated, and
the corresponding length of the pharynx. Slaughtering by the insertion of the knife in any
part above or below these limits is called "hagramah," and renders the animal unfit for
food.

5: (Tearing). If either the windpipe or the gullet is torn out or removed from its regular
position during the slaughtering, the animal becomes unfit for food.170

The slaughtered animal goes through a rigid scrutiny even after the process of
slaughtering is complete. The knife is checked again, the person who slaughtered the
animal is inspected and animal is examined to ascertain whether or not the rabbinical
laws were fully implemented.

It is evident that this process of slaughtering is in line with Islamic rules of Tasmiyah and
Tazkiyah. Actually this process is more sophisticated than the simple Islamic rules of
Tasmiyah and Tazkiyah. The Jewish community has been following these strict rules
since antiquity. That was precisely the reason that the Qur’an permitted eating from their
slaughtered animals and not from the polytheists.

When we look at the edicts of the contemporary scholars such as Shaikh Yusuf al-
Qaradawi and Shaikh Mustafa al-Zarqa in light of the above discussions, we conclude
that these learned teachers, particularly in this matter, have somehow chosen to follow
the minority and weak position. I want to make it clear here that I am in no position to
criticize the knowledge and wisdom of the highly qualified authorities such as Shaikh al-
Qaradawi or Shaikh al-Zarqa. It is absolutely unfitting for a student like me to doubt their
knowledge or jurisprudential maturity. They are the stalwarts of contemporary Islamic
Jurisprudence and people like me do not even deserve to be called proper students in the
areas where they have already excelled. With due respect and utmost regards I want to
express that the same teachers have taught us to engage in a scholarly discourse and even
disagree with the established opinions if the logic and intent of the Law requires so. With
this spirit of true Islamic scholarship and from this perspective of frank and honest
discussion, I would like to state that the issue of Zabiha or non-Zabiha is not something
that is connected with science. New experiments and new explorations will not gradually
reveal aspects which were hidden from previous generations of scholarship. It is not an
issue like the astronomical calculations or stem cell research that our modern scholarship
is better equipped to handle than the classical scholarship. The issue of Zabiha and non-

169
Ibid, 24
170
See more details in Jewish Encyclopedia

61
Zabiha is connected with basic Halal and Haram and with daily routines of the Muslim
community. The historical facts have not changed much when it comes to interaction
between Muslims and the People of the Book. This interaction happened very closely in
the life of the Prophet (PBUH) himself, during the period of the rightly guided Caliphs
and then their Successors. The first three centuries or the best of three centuries as the
Prophet (PBUH) has said, were full of close interaction between the Muslim, Jewish and
Christian communities. Practices of these centuries and the pronouncements of the
scholars of antiquity are better suited to throw light on the original and true understanding
of the issue than the later scholarship. Moreover, there is no cause and effect type of
relationship between any aspect of the constituent elements of this issue like in the Moon
sighting issue, where the unlettered status of the then Muslim Ummah was given as a
cause of not going with astronomical calculations. The Zabiha issue is a clear issue of
Halal and non-Halal food items. This issue is more significant than the issue of Moon
sighting, Eid al-Fitr or Eid al-Adha because unlike Ramadan or the two Eids, it covers
our daily life, the daily food we consume and our daily life style. It is more pervasive
than the religious rituals occurring at yearly or monthly intervals. Therefore, this matter is
in my view, not a matter of new Ijtihad or new realities because most of the factors as
well as the fundamental realities intrinsic to the issue remain the same. As a result, it is
more logical to go with the majority opinion and accept the classical opinions regarding
this matter rather than trying to experiment with new methodology based upon minority
as well as legally weak opinion.

Shaikh al-Qaradawi bases his Fatwa on the following three principles.

1: The original Islamic rule regarding the foods is permissibility until Allah SWT
prohibits something. Shaikh al-Qaradarwi argues that, ”Since Allah did not prohibit it,
the food of the Jews and the Christians is permitted to you on the basis of the original
permissibility of things, and likewise you can share your food with them. Accordingly,
you can eat the flesh of the animals they have slaughtered or hunted, and they can eat
what you have slaughtered or hunted.”171

We have already seen above that Allah SWT has ordained us to eat from the meat upon
which the name of Allah SWT was pronounced and it was done in accordance with the
laws of Tazkiyah. He SWT has also forbidden us from consuming the meat which was
not slaughtered in the name of Allah SWT. Therefore, only those categories of food and
meat will come under the original law of permissibility which was done in pursuance of
these divine laws.

2: That the Qur’anic verse allowing the food of the People of Book is generic. “The
application of the phrase, ‘the food of those who were given the Scripture,’ is general and
includes their meats, produce, and other foods. All of these are Halal for us excepting
what is Haram in itself, e.g., the flesh of a dead animal, pork, and flowing blood, as these

171
Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf, The Lawful and The Prohibited in Islam, p:59

62
are Haram regardless of whether they are obtained from a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim.
“172

We have already discussed this point in details. The conclusion is that this verse is not
generic in its implications. It is restricted by the other verses of the Qur’an such as the
verse that prohibits the dead meat, pork etc. It is also restricted by the verses of Tasmiyah
and Tazkiyah, as the majority of classical scholars maintain that these verses are not
abrogated.

3:”If one does not hear from a Christian or a Jew that a name other than Allah’s such as
that of Jesus or a saint, was mentioned at the time of slaughter, the meat he offers is
Halal. If, however, he says that a name other than Allah’s has been mentioned, it is,
according to the opinion of some jurists who argue that it falls under the heading of what
has been dedicated to other than Allah. Some others hold the opinion that the food of the
People of the Book has been permitted to us by Allah, Who is aware of what they say
when slaughtering an animal.”173

We have also discussed this point in details and shown its weaknesses. I have shown that
Imams Abu Hanifah, Malik and Ahmad all prohibit consumption of the meat upon which
the name of Allah SWT was omitted intentionally. This is their edict regarding a Muslim.
They could have not relaxed the rule for a non-Muslim Kitabi and they did not. Imam
Shafa’i’ is the only one who, in case of a Muslim, has downgraded the rule of Tasmiyah
to a recommended Sunnah instead of a precondition for permissibility. But his position
about the People of the Book is very clear. He requires that they must pronounce the
Tasmiyah otherwise their slaughtered meat will be Haram to consume. He makes it
abundantly clear when he states that this requirement is due to the possibility that the
People of the Book are prone to Shirk.

‫ن‬
))‫ وآ‬،ِ
‫ اب‬% ِ‫ه‬1‫أ‬
َ ‫م‬,({ '/
4‫ ا‬% 4
,‫أ‬َ :c(F N‫' ا‬O‫ ر‬A(ّ B‫!ل ا‬
V
ِ0
))‫ وآ‬،123
-o,ª
ِ,
‫ذ‬
َ he‫ ا‬% ِ‫ه‬
1‫أ‬َ 
T ' /$
T
, /V9e  ¬ِ(
1
, )$
T ِ 23({
'
ِ
4 À*. 2 13
-o
-ªِ,
‫ذ‬َ V0‫ن آ‬ )D .23oª‫ل ذ‬ ِ“1‫إ‬
ِ  ‫ل‬‹/F
) ‫ر‬/َ
M‫ا‬
'
ِ
4‫ ا‬2ِ
1‫ ا‬
)1~
) ' ‫ن‬ )*. /H• Y Å
1‫ذ‬َ 23) )‫)ن‬
‫ن آ‬
T‫إ‬
ِ‫ و‬،†‫“ل‬
Æ, A
,3ِ
) ),
(F)
%
\Ç ; ‫ ـــ‬c, (F
) '
ِ
4‫ن ا‬ )‫و‬/
‫ د‬2
ِ 1ِ '
/0)*³Z. ‫ أو‬،YU‫ ا‬21 ‫ ا‬%ْdِ c,
(F
174
‫ا‬Z‫ ه‬213-oª,‫ذ‬َ ‫ن‬4‫أ‬
َ V/G‫ و^ أ‬،23oª‫َا  ذ‬ Z‫ه‬,

Imam Shafa’i’ has clearly divided their slaughtered animals into two categories. The first
category consists of the animals which are done in the name of Allah SWT and this
category is Halal. The second category covers those animals which are done in the name
of other than Allah SWT or in the name of anyone else like Jesus (PBUH) and that
category is Haram. Imam Shafa’i’ defends this classification against those who claim that
the verse is generic and does not permit such a division. He states:

172
Al-Qaradawi, Ibid, 60
173
Al-Qaradawi, Ibid, 60
174
Al-Shafa’i’, Kitab al-Umm, Ibid

63
 V
To
,ِ‫أ‬
ُ  T!
)‫ و‬،ِ‫)ن‬e$
Trِ 2 13-o
,ªِ,‫ذ‬َ ‫ أن‬V )
1 ,‫ز‬) C ),‫آ‬
T‫ و‬:% †ªِ)! ‫ل‬)) ! ‫ن‬TD
ِ)
¬
ٍ(
1, ‫' دون‬/ u( ‫د‬ /‫ا‬. µ‫؛ وإ‬p ]| ‫ء‬ ُAkB‫ح ا‬ -G- .  T!) :% )ِ!.‫ً؟‬ ]
))|
T-
،'oَ ‫ ذ‬VT
)‫آ‬ِ‫أ‬ُ c(F ' ِ
4‫ ا‬2 ,
1‫ ا‬A ,ِ0
) ‫ِن‬ ‫ إ‬2
,ِ1U
/‫ن ا‬ \‫أ‬َ 2 Å ‫ زا‬2 ,
,‫ز‬) ‫َا‬ ‫ذ‬D
ِ)

T, ‫ن‬
))‫ آ‬،ِ‫ك‬TB
Ê ' . ^ Æ *,‫ه‬-‫ و‬،'o‫ ذ‬% T‫آ‬lF ;  p) e‚T
ِ 1‫' ا‬ /‫آ‬
))F) ‫ن‬T‫إ‬
ِ‫و‬,
175
'
/
/o,ِ‫ذ‬َ ‫ك‬)
)TF
/ ‫ أن‬c1 ‫أو‬
َ ‫ّك‬ B‫'  ا‬ / ,
).,
“If someone says how could you divide their Zabiha into two categories while their
Zabiha is permitted in general? The answer will be that sometimes a thing is permitted
generally but the intent is to permit a portion of it with the exception of others. If
someone contends that a Muslim’s Zabiha will be permitted in case he somehow forgot
to pronounce the name of Allah SWT upon it. But it will not be permitted if the Muslim
disdainfully omitted the Tasmiyah. It will be said to him that if this is the situation with a
Muslim who is not expected to commit Shirk then, it will be primordial to prohibit the
Zabiha of the one who can commit the Shirk (the Kitabi).”

We have already seen that the majority of the classical scholars agree that the Zabiha of
the People of Book was permitted because they used to slaughter it in the name of Allah
SWT and in accordance with Islamic rules of Tazkiyah. Ibn Kathir and others have made
this point clear.
2À& ،Â ‫ “ل‬23oª‫ أن ذ‬،‫ ا(ء‬Â ' fÚ ‫ا أ‬Z‫وه‬
،N‫ ا‬2 ‫ إ^ ا‬23oª‫آون  ذ‬Z.^‫ و‬،N‫ ا‬h× YZ‫€ ا‬t ‫(]ون‬.
176
.‫]س‬F‫ و‬c(F ،2*!  ¾$ *‫  ه‬c(F ' ‫وإن ا ]وا‬
“There is a consensus among the Muslim jurists that the Zabiha of Christians and Jews is
Halal for Muslims because the (Jews and Christians) believe in the unlawfulness of
slaughtering in the name of other than Allah and they do not recite over their animals
anything except the name of Allah even if they believe about Him what is not appropriate
for Him and He absolutely transcends that.”

The Zabiha of the Zoroastrians was not permitted even though according to the Qur’an
they come under the title of the People of Book because they used not to follow the
Islamic rules of Tazkiyah and Tasmiyah. The Christians of Banu Taghlab and others were
excluded from this permission by many Companions because their commitment to these
principles was doubted.

How can we permit the use of market meat when we are not sure whether it was
slaughtered by a Christian, Buddhist or an atheist working at the meat plant? How can
we allow such a consumption and we are certain that the Islamic rules of Tazkiyah and
Tasmiyah were disdainfully not followed? How can we go against the consensus of all
the known imams including the Ja’afari School of thought and permit this meat based
upon weak arguments and very weak and indirect reports? The Imami jurist al-Muhaqqaq
al-Hilli reports that the official position of the Shi’a Imami school of Fiqh is that the
intentional omission of Tasmiyah will render an animal unlawful. They usually do not
permit consumption of a Kitabi’s Zabiha anyway. They place stringent requirements that
the Zabiha of a Kitabi will only be permissible if the Muslim heard him reciting the
Tasmiyah at the time of slaughtering the animal. This is the minority position. The

175
Ibid
176
Ibn Kathir, 3, 35

64
majority of imami jurists prohibit eating from the Zabiha of the People of the Book as a
general rule. Al-Hilli reports that:
.u ? ِ"َkَ ْ‫ ا‬,ُ َ ََ3 َ‫ َو‬. ُ ُ*ْُD ْ‫َْ ُم َأو‬giِ ْ‫ ا‬: ِ 8ِ4 ُ‫َْ َط‬Iُ8َ4 : ]ُ ِ+‫ ا
ا‬#‫] َأ‬
ِ ْ+
 ‫ ا‬Cُ 8ِ;ْ8َ‫ َوآ‬, Cُ َ\ْ‫ وَا‬, ]
ُ ِ+‫ ا
ا‬: ٌCَk ََ9َ4 ‫ن‬
ُ َ‫ اَْرْآ‬#‫َأ‬
َ‫ َو‬, u l ِ‫ َوَ ا"_َْا‬, ‫ي‬ l ‫َ!ُ ِد‬8ْ‫ ا‬Cُ َD َ+‫ْآَ ُ ِذ‬zُ ََ4 . :ُ ْ"َ*ْ‫ْ!َْهُ*َ ا‬B‫ َأ‬: ‫ن‬ِ ََ3‫ ِروَا‬u l ِ+ َِْ‫ ا‬uِ4‫ َو‬. Cً َْ8َ# ‫ح‬ ُ ُ+ْ
َ*ْ‫ن ا‬
َ َ‫] آ‬َ َ+‫ََْ َذ‬4
177
]
ُ َ+ْ
َ‫ َو‬. ٌCَDَ <ُ# u َ ِ‫ َوه‬, ُ َُ8ِ*ْ>َ ْRَِ*ُg ‫ إذَا‬, ul l#
l ‫ ا‬Cُ َD َ+‫ْآَ ُ ِذ‬zُ , Cٍ َ9ِ َk Cٍ َ3‫ ِروَا‬uِ4‫ َو‬. u l ِgُnَ*ْ‫ا‬
“There are three requirements: the slaughterer, the instrument and the slaughtering
method. In the first requirement the slaughterer must be a Muslim. The polytheist’s
slaughtered animal is just like dead animal. There are two views about the Kitabi. The
known opinion is absolute prohibition. It is not permitted to consume the meat done by a
Jew or a Christian or a Zoroastrian. There is a third view that maintains that the Zabiha of
only those Kitabi’s is permitted who are Zimmis (living in a Muslim state and paying
Jizyah). The condition for them is that the Muslim must hear the Tasmiyah while they are
actually slaughtering the animal.”

How could we abandon all the firm and solid verses of Tasmiyah and Tazkiyah based
upon a single and unauthenticated report from Ibn Abbas? How can we prefer Ibn
Arabi’s opinion over all the established opinions of higher Fiqhi authorities like Imams
Abu Hanifa, Malik, Ahmad and Shafa’i’? Unfortunately, Ibn Arabi, with all regards to
his knowledge and wisdom, has gone far beyond the established norms in this matter
when he maintained that even a chicken killed by a Kitabi is permitted because the verse
of Surah al-Maidah is generic.

%
/‫آ‬)lT.
- % T‫ه‬, :, 3‚
/G-|T., 2 ُ  ِ}
,,}4‫¸ ا‬ )$
/ - %/
ِeT.
, A ‡0ِ‫)ا‬P
1$
4‫ ا‬ T
, VT Íِ
- T]
))‫و‬
,
‫ ؛‬% /‫آ‬)l
TF/ :VT ]
/) : ُ$)ِkd‫ ا‬ ُ)َ
1,
T‫ ا‬A ,‫ه‬
ِ‫و‬, ‫؟‬/ '$
Tِ q ,
({) ZُH
)lTF
/ ‫و‬ 1‫أ‬
َ '/(,
,
،) 0
)$T
ِ ‫ة‬ p)‫ذآ‬
َ  ِZِ‫ه‬
,  T/F
) 2 1
) ‫ن‬ T‫إ‬ِ‫و‬,،ِ'0
ِ,G‫ه‬
1‫ر‬
/‫و‬, ِ‫ر‬ِ,G
1‫أ‬َ ‫م‬-,
({)‫و‬
, '/-,({
) ,304&
Æ
2
13ِ$ِ.ِ‫ د‬Aِ  ‫ن‬ )‫و‬
1)., ,  % ‹‫آ‬
/‫و‬, ،p ])|
T- 213-,
,({
) ‫ح‬ ,,‫أ‬َ ),(F) ')4‫ ا‬ 4
ِ)‫و‬
,
178
)
$$
ِ.‫د‬ِ Aِ )$
) ‫ل‬ †“,
 '/0
4Dِ
)
“I was asked about a Christian who twisted the neck of the chicken and then cooked it. Is
it permitted (for a Muslim) to eat with him or eat from that chicken? … I replied, “It is
permitted to be consumed because this is his food and the food of his rabbis and priests
even if it does not fulfill the rules of Islamic Tazkiyah. Because Allah SWT has absolutely
permitted their foods, therefore, whatever they view is Halal in their religion is Halal for
us.”

This statement of Ibn Arabi is too difficult to digest. It goes against the verses of the
Qur’an which restrict the use of unlawful food of the People of the Book such as pork,
dead body etc. even though it is lawful in their religions. It also goes against his own
stated positions such as the following:

Cَ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬ َ ُ َْ3 ْ‫ َأن‬: َ‫ه‬Lُ َD‫ َأ‬: ‫َْا ٍل‬D‫ َأ‬Cِ َk ََk ْ'ِ# ُْYَ3 َ ‫ًا‬Lْ*َ. Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ك ا‬ َ ‫ن َ ِر‬
 ‫ ; َأ¡ْ!َ ُهَ َأ‬,ٍ ُ‫ِ'ْ ُو‬# ( l َWْ ِ+ ِ 8ِ4 َ"ْD َv‫َو‬
ِ 3ِXْnُ3 U َ ِ
َ َ4 : uِ َ>ِِ+ U
َ ِ‫ ِذآْ ِ َذ‬/َ‫ِ ُ إ‬2َْ4‫ََ َأ‬4 , ,ِ Lِ 8ِDَْ‫ْ*َ ِء ا ِ َو‬g‫ِ'ْ َأ‬# ٌ‫َ*ُْء‬# uَِْE : ‫ُ ُل‬2َ3 ُ َِ ; Cَ َW8ِ+
 ‫ ا‬:َ َnْe‫إذَا َأ‬
ِ َِْِ ِ 3ِXْnُ3 ‫َ!َ
َا‬4 , Cٍ َ+ُْ2ِ+ ْRَ>ْ8َ َ!iِ َ4 , Cً َW3َِv Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>‫ ا‬:َ ِeَْ# ‫ هَ
َا‬b َ ْ8َ : ‫َ َل‬E ْ‫ َوِإن‬. ُ َ*Tَ.‫ْ َذآَ َ ا َ َو‬LَE ُ َِ ;
‫َ!َ
َا‬4 ‫ ؟‬Cِ َ8ِ*ْ>ِ ‫ْ ٍر‬LَE ‫ي‬? ‫ َوَأ‬, ul*َg‫ َ ُأ‬: ‫َ َل‬E ْ‫ َوِإن‬. ,ُ Lَ َE ْ'َ*ِ ‫ًا‬L8ِْ2َ‫ ِ َو‬8ِ4 Lِ ِ!َْnُ*ِْ ‫ اِْ!َ دًا‬,ُ ‫َ ُد‬2ِْ.‫] ا‬ ? ِ_َ3 ^ ٍ َ‫َ
ْه‬# /ََ.

177
Al-Hilli, Ja’afar bin Hasan al-Hazli, Shara’ia al-Islam fi Masa’il al-Halal wa al-Haram, Muassat
Matbu’ati Ismailyan, 3, 159
178
Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, Ibid

65
‫ ا_? َر ِة‬/ََ. #ََ4 , '
ِ ْ8َ8َ‫' اُْو‬
ِ ْ8َ‫ ا_? َر‬/ََ. Cِ ََْ>َ*ْ‫ ا‬uِ4 ‫ف‬
ُ َِYْ‫َُ_َ  ُر ا‬3 َ*iِ َ4 , ُ َُW8ِ+‫ْآَ ُ َذ‬zُ َ ٌ(ِg َ4 ٌِ4 َ‫َُ!َ ِونٌ آ‬#
179
َ!َ §
َ 8ِYْIَ ََ4 Cِ َ9ِ 9‫ا‬
“There could possibly be three reasons for the Tasmiyah omission. First, the person may
omit Tasmiyah at the time of slaughter thinking that his heart is filled with Tawhid and
names of Allah SWT. There is no need to pronounce the name of Allah by his tongue.
This is acceptable from him because he remembered Allah SWT and glorified Him.
Second is that he says that this is not a sacrifice and this is not a time and place to recite
the Tasmiyah. This is acceptable also as he is following an established opinion (and
school of Fiqh). But if he says I do not recite Tasmiyah doubting its significance then he
is a disdainfully evil non-believer. His slaughtered animal will not be eaten. There could
be some room for difference of opinion in the first two scenarios but not in the last one.”

It is evident that even Ibn Arabi himself can not allow a disdainful intentional omission
of Tasmiyah. Actually he declares such an omission as an act of disbelief and
abomination. It is surprising that in case of a Kitabi he would go to such a lax position
where he permits even the suffocated chicken or a chicken killed by neck twist. That is
perhaps the reason that the overwhelming majority of jurists from all schools of thoughts
have scorned Ibn al-Arabi for that:

‫ع‬
ٍ‫و‬/Bْ
,  ِ
1~
) ¸ ٍ.ِ |
)ِ Y,ِ‫ذ‬
ُ , ‫و‬, A‡ِ)
ِT‫ ا‬
َ!)*/
$‚T
, ‫ن‬
4‫أ‬َ )  , ‫ء‬
ُ,3])e/
T‫¸ ا‬)e)F
4‫ا‬
)‫و‬
1‫أ‬َ A‡ِ)
ِT‫ ا‬ T
ِ) 2ِِ
1-
T‫ ا‬ Tِ %T‫آ‬
)TlF
/ 2
1
) ‫َا‬‫ إذ‬,304َ
ِ , ' //‫آ‬
T‫أ‬َ ‫ز‬/*-.
, ) 

T])
) A ‡
ِ)ِ
T‫ ا‬ ِ!)*/$‚
T, % ِ‫آ‬
T‫أ‬َ ‫ز‬ِ‫ا‬, *}
, Tِ A
‡
ِ)(
,T‫ ا‬
/1‫' ا‬ /
))
! ,   ‫أ‬
َ‫و‬
, ,
180
'
ِ1
) , 
-‫‹و‬‫رد‬)
“The scholars agreed that the animal suffocated by the Kitabi or slaughtered by him in a
way different than the legal Islamic way would not be permitted for consumption. Such
an animal would not be eaten if a Muslim slaughtered it that way. How could it be
accepted from a Kitabi then! Ibn Arabi’s stance regarding this matter has been roundly
rejected and criticized by the scholars.”

Basing our eating habits on such a lax interpretation is unwarranted.

Moreover, the argument of hardship is no more convincing. It used be hard to find a

Muslim Zabiha store but no more. There are plenty of Muslim stores as well as Jewish
stores which carry the properly slaughtered meat. Even some of the mainstream food
stores are carrying the Zabiha or Jewish Kosher meat with most of the aspired varieties.
Therefore, it is not hard to find the properly done meat. That is why Shaikh Yusuf al-
Qaradawi, in spite of his previous fatwa about permissibility of non-Zabiha market meat,
later on encouraged the Muslims to eat from the Zabiha meat.

I will like to conclude this paper with the comments of al-Zamakhshari, the famous
Mu’tazili exegete, who says:
N‫ ا‬2 ‫آ ا‬Z. ; · %‫آ‬. ^ ‫' أن‬$.‫ د‬K ‫ة‬hPG‫و ¸ ذي ا‬
181
،29(‫ ا‬.B‫  ا‬.M‫ ا‬K ‫ى‬. U ‫ آن؛‬e‫ ' آ‬

179
Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam, 2, 247
180
Encyclopedia, 21, 204
181
Al-Zamakhshari, Tafseer al-Kasha’f, Surah al-Ana’m

66
“It is a duty of the insightful Muslim not to eat from an animal slaughtered without the
name of Allah whatever was the case or the form because of such a forceful and stern
(prohibition of it) in the (Qur’anic) verse.” (Allah SWT Knows the Best)

67